Activity detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is externally covered. The description adds only the mode/parameter dependency; it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or precedence behavior, though much of that lives in the schema and output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 single sentence is tightly worded and front-loads the core modes. It is very concise, but for a 10-parameter tool it achieves conciseness by omitting practical guidance, so it is not fully appropriately 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?

Because output schema and annotations exist, the primary missing context is when to invoke this tool versus siblings and how mode, period, and filters combine. The description and schema together are adequate for a simple drill-down call, but the agent must infer usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, and the description restates the mode-to-parameter mapping already present in the mode property. It adds value for activity_name and category_guid by marking them as the deciding inputs, but compact and is_website remain unspecified; their names/defaults carry them partially.

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?

Clearly labels the tool as an activity drill-down with two modes, ActivityWindow and CategoryWindow, and identifies the required parameter for each. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_activity_summary or other siblings, but the term 'drill-down' plus mode names convey a detail-oriented purpose.

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?

Provides mode-selection guidance: activity_window needs activity_name; category_window needs category_guid. It does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_activity_summary or search_monitoring, so exclusion/alternative guidance is absent.

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