Search activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own — no result volume, no default limit note, no pagination or match semantics. It essentially restates the schema's parameter description.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core action up front. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. The notable gap is disambiguation from list_activities and get_activity, which an agent needs to route correctly among the many activity siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description repeats 'name or tag' without adding syntax, matching rules, or guidance on the limit parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (activities) and scopes it to name or tag matching. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_activities, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to pick when browsing vs querying.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_activities or get_activity. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'by name or tag'; nothing tells the agent what to do when it lacks a query term.

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