list_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the ordering behavior (most recent first when no dates) and the fallback semantics of the date filter, but says nothing about permissions, whether results are read-only, pagination/truncation at the 50-item cap, or what fields come back.

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 sentences, both load-bearing, with the two operating modes laid out in parallel and the no-date case presented first. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 4-optional-param, fully schema-documented list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the main decision points (mode selection, filtering, limit trick). Remaining gaps are return-shape and read-only guarantees, which are minor given all parameters are already documented.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value: it explains the conditional interaction between date params and type ('and/or'), and supplies a concrete usage pattern for limit (limit=1 for the last activity) that the schema only describes as 'Max activities'.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List activities') and immediately scopes it by describing the two operating modes (recent vs. date-range). It implicitly separates itself from the singular sibling get_activity, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance for each mode: omit dates to get the most recent activities, pass startDate/endDate and/or type to get a range, and use limit=1 to fetch just the last activity. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (get_activity) for single-record retrieval, so an agent must infer that boundary.

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