list_activities_for_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains the parameter behavior and does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, or what happens if the deal_id is invalid. This is minimal transparency for a list operation.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides the key parameter interpretation. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description covers the essential filtering behavior. However, it omits the return format (presumably a list of activity objects), error scenarios, and pagination. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more context on what the tool returns would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the 'done' parameter's semantics (false=pending, true=completed, null=both), but the 'deal_id' parameter receives no additional explanation beyond its type.

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 action ('list activities on a deal') and explains the effect of the 'done' parameter (pending only, completed only, both). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_deal' or 'add_note_to_deal' which serve different purposes.

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 how to use the 'done' parameter but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there is no other activity-listing sibling, the implied context is sufficient but lacks explicit when-not scenarios.

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