search_activities

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 covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — results are *summarized* activities rather than raw records — plus a vague note on date restrictions, but no pagination or return-shape detail.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. But two of the four sentences ('与官方客户端 search_activities 一一对应', '沿用官方接口') convey no actionable information and read as filler.

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?

Five optional parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation. For a search tool where date-range and activity_type syntax determine correctness, the description does far too little; deferring to an 'official interface' leaves real gaps.

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 0% across five parameters (limit, start, end_date, start_date, activity_type). The phrase '参数...沿用官方接口' explicitly punts parameter meaning to external documentation, adding nothing about format, date syntax, or the activity_type vocabulary the agent would need to construct a call.

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 verb+resource ('搜索运动记录' / 'Return summarized activities'), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_activity, get_activity_workouts, or download_activity, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from purpose alone.

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 only guidance is '参数和日期限制沿用官方接口' — a deferral to an external 'official interface' the agent cannot inspect. There is no statement of when to use this versus the activity-related siblings, no exclusions, and no prerequisite hints.

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