search_activities

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are ordered newest first and limit is bounded to 1-100, which prevents an agent from requesting an oversized page. It does not disclose what an unfiltered call returns or how heavy the endpoint is, so it is additive but not rich.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args block is a compact, scannable enumeration with no filler. Each entry earns its place by adding format or range information the schema lacks. The structure is conventional docstring style but serves the reader well.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the definition should ideally hint at what an activity record contains or at least confirm the return is a list of activity summaries with identifiers usable in get_activity. Nothing about the return shape or result-count/pagination termination is given, and no prerequisites (e.g., authentication) are mentioned, leaving a meaningful gap for a no-output-schema tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does so: every one of the six parameters is explained, including date format (YYYY-MM-DD), example activity_type keys, the 1-100 page-size bound, and that start is a pagination offset. The search parameter is clarified as free-text matching on activity name rather than on other fields. Only the handling of empty/omitted filters is left implicit.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Search recorded activities') and enumerates the resource families (runs, rides, swims, strength) plus the ordering ('newest first'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the single-record sibling get_activity or get_wellness_activities, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to use this to discover activity IDs before calling get_activity, and nothing says how it relates to get_wellness_activities. The filter list implies a search/listing role, but the agent must infer that.

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