find_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'List' but doesn't specify read-only nature, pagination behavior, or what happens on empty results. Input schema shows 'top' and 'skip' but description doesn't mention them.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it omits critical details needed for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions. Could be more informative without significant bloat.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists. Description fails to cover pagination, filtering, or how to use parameters effectively, leaving significant 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%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to activity_type by listing examples (calls, emails, meetings) and indicates matter_id/account_id are for filtering. But top and skip parameters are completely unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists activities (calls, emails, meetings) on matters/accounts, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like find_events or find_tasks, but could be more explicit about filtering capabilities.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many find* tools (find_accounts, find_contacts, etc.) but no differentiation or context for selecting this one.

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