List activity history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, lowering the bar. The description adds useful domain context (activity states and the enumerated activity types, plus the fact that activities carry associated events), but says nothing about pagination behavior or the shape of returned records. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotation.

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 opening 'Get activities' is front-loaded and efficient, but the remainder is a long enumeration of activity types whose parenthetical explanations restate the schema's enum descriptions verbatim, adding bulk without new information. Moderately verbose for the value delivered.

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?

With ten filter parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the definition should ideally describe what a returned activity contains and how pagination/sorting interacts with the filters. It covers domain terminology well but leaves the return structure and paging semantics to inference, so it is only minimally complete.

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 100%, so all ten parameters including filters and the activity_types/activity_states enums are already documented. The description's enumeration of types and states largely duplicates what the schema enums already carry, so it adds little semantic meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Get activities') and goes further to define what an activity actually is (records of events on packages, links, transfers), so an agent knows the domain object being retrieved. However, it never distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_activity_events or get_activities_information, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. It mentions that 'each activity has associated events,' which hints at a relationship to get_activity_events, but it never says 'use X for events' or when to prefer this listing tool over get_activities_information. No exclusions or prerequisites either.

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