List email activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: the fixed sort order pinIndex DESC, createdAt DESC, id DESC, and the pagination termination rule. However, nothing is said about the shape or size of returned items or about authorization requirements.

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?

Five short, front-loaded lines with no filler, and the sort-order and pagination details are the parts an agent actually needs. The opening line merely restates the tool name and title, which is the one expendable sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return values could be characterized, and it only covers ordering and the cursor. For a simple filtered-list read tool with full annotations this is mostly sufficient, but the item payload remains uncharacterized.

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 the schema already states the exactly-one-of contactId/dealId rule and the limit bounds. The description reinforces the exclusive-or constraint and adds operational meaning to cursor by specifying the loop termination condition, which the schema does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List email activities") and narrows scope to activities "directly attached to the requested contact or deal," which implicitly separates it from the sibling feed tool referenced as GET /v1/email-activity/feed. It stops short of naming list_email_activity_feed explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete operating instructions: supply contactId or dealId, and paginate with the returned cursor until it is null. It points to the feed endpoint as a related resource but never states the condition under which the agent should prefer that alternative.

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