persons_list_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists return fields (activity details, due date, completion status, owner, related deal/organization), which helps the agent understand output. It does not explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only) but 'list' implies no side effects. 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 description is well-structured: a clear opening sentence, bullet points of return fields, and separate lines for filters and pagination. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description compensates by listing expected return fields comprehensively. It covers filters and pagination. Missing details like error states or rate limits, but for a simple list operation, it is fairly 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 coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of the 'done' filter and mentioning pagination parameters implicitly. However, the schema already provides sufficient parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: 'List all activities associated with a specific person.' It identifies the resource (person), the action (list activities), and the type of data returned (calls, meetings, tasks, etc.). Among sibling tools like activities_list, deals_list_activities, and organizations_list_activities, this tool uniquely targets person-specific activities, making it easy to distinguish.

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 explains filters (done) and pagination, providing context on how to control output. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like activities_list or deals_list_activities. Still, the context is clear enough that an agent can infer usage.

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