list_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that activities are filtered by direction (pending/past) and other criteria, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (it's a read operation, but not explicitly stated), sorting behavior, pagination nuances beyond the limit parameter, or any error conditions.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-line summary followed by a clean bulleted list of arguments. Every line adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a list tool with an output schema. It covers all filters and the core behavior. Minor gaps include lack of explicit read-only confirmation, pagination behavior, and potential error messages, but these are not critical given the simple nature of the operation and the presence of an output schema.

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 description provides detailed explanations for all five parameters in the Args section, which is especially valuable given the schema has zero description coverage. It adds clear meaning to direction, limit, contact_ids, deal_ids, and completed, fully compensating for the schema's lack of 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 it lists activities (pending or past) matching filters, using the verb 'list' and resource 'activities'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_deals or list_notes, but the resource is unambiguous given the tool name and parameter details.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list activities) and details the filters, but it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The purpose is evident, but there's no comparative context with sibling tools.

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