search_activities

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

The description states activities are read-only, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it adds no further behavioral context such as permissions, rate limits, or result volume.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, bullet-pointed use cases, and an activity type list. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing 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?

Given no output schema and 9 optional parameters, the description covers key use cases, filter options, and activity types. It references list_activity_types for completeness, leaving no major gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, e.g., explaining client_id shows all activity for a contact, and listing activity types with examples. This helps the agent understand parameter usage.

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 states the tool searches the activity feed/timeline, lists what activities include (emails, notes, etc.), and provides specific use cases. It effectively distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools like list_events by focusing on the broad activity feed.

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 description explicitly lists when to use the tool (e.g., viewing interaction history, tracking broker activity) and suggests using list_activity_types for valid types. It does not mention when not to use or directly compare to alternatives, but the guidance is clear and contextual.

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