List activities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are a compact summary by default, but that same fact is already spelled out in the `fields` schema entry, so the added behavioral value is thin. Nothing about pagination or the `limit` ceiling of 500 is surfaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the list/date-range scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence largely restates the `fields` schema description, which slightly dilutes its value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, an agent has what it needs: scope, defaults, and how to expand the payload. Only pagination behavior and the relationship to search_activities are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter carries its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description points at `fields` but adds no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (list activities) with scope (for a date range), which cleanly separates it from get_activity, get_activity_streams, and other single-activity siblings. It does not explicitly name search_activities as the alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The date-range framing implies when this tool applies, and the hint about `fields` steers parameter choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_activities or the get_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.