get_member_activities

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirement and that it returns currently signed-up activities. However, it lacks information on rate limits, data freshness, or behavior on errors (e.g., member not found).

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second provides sibling differentiation, third notes auth requirement. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 7 parameters (all documented in schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core purpose, usage, and auth. It could mention output format or pagination behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read operation.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds value for the 'member' parameter with format examples and for 'limit' with default and '0 for all' usage. Other parameters are already well-described in 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?

Description clearly states the tool gets a member's upcoming/registered activities by slug or profile URL. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_member_history for past activities and noting it mirrors get_my_activities.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for upcoming/registered activities) and when to use an alternative (get_member_history for past completed). Also notes authentication requirement.

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