search_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses the core behavior (FTS5 full-text search) and scoping (titles and content). However, it omits details like case sensitivity, stop words, or authorization needs. The lack of contradictions with annotations (none) and the clear search intent justify a 4.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second provides usage guidance. 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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is brief but covers core intent. It lacks details on return format, pagination behavior (limit), date range semantics (start/end), and source filtering. While the main purpose is clear, the agent lacks information to fully use all parameters correctly.

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 only 33% (descriptions for query and tag). The description does not add new information for the undocumented parameters (end, limit, start, source). It repeats the query description (already in schema) and mentions the tag filter but provides no format or constraint details. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Keyword search (FTS5) over activity titles and content' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool semantic_search_activities by noting the keyword vs semantic distinction.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for concrete terms and phrases... Prefer this over semantic_search_activities for keyword-shaped queries.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when not to, including a specific alternative.

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