qui_get_reannounce_activity

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares a safe read operation, and the description aligns by specifying GET. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as required authentication, pagination, or response format. The description is consistent with the annotation but adds minimal value beyond it.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently covers the endpoint and argument structure. It is not bloated, but could be slightly improved by listing the argument categories in a more structured way. Still, it earns its place and is well-sized.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description provides the endpoint and argument convention but lacks domain context about what 'reannounce activity' contains (e.g., dates, statuses). For a low-complexity tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for richer context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and an open 'arguments' object, the description compensates by explaining how to structure arguments: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. This is crucial for correctly invoking the endpoint and grounds the otherwise generic schema.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a GET to the reannounce/activity endpoint, with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explain what 'reannounce activity' is or distinguish it from similar tools like qui_get_reannounce_candidates, making it clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the endpoint and argument-passing convention, but gives no context for when this tool is appropriate, such as 'use this when you need to view reannounce activity for an instance'.

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