list_database_activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious constraint that the underlying database entries cannot be read or added and this tool provides listing coverage only. That is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial. It stops short of describing pagination or result volume for the open-world scan.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope caveat second. Minor wording clumsiness ('read-only coverage only') but nothing extraneous.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot, namely that entry-level access is out of scope. Complete enough to call correctly, though it omits how the per-course results are grouped.

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% on the single course_ids parameter, so the schema already documents its type and meaning. The description's 'across one or more courses' modestly reinforces that the parameter accepts multiple ids, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (list) and a specific resource (Database / "mod_data" activities), which cleanly separates it from the many other list_* siblings such as list_assignments, list_quizzes and list_h5p_activities. The only shortfall is that the resource is identified via a Moodle module name an agent may need to map, rather than by plain-language description of what a 'database activity' is.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this to enumerate database activities for given courses. The explicit note about reading/adding entries being unsupported is a capability boundary, not guidance about when to choose this tool over a sibling, and no alternative tool is named.

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