Find Similar Activities

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, but the description adds meaningful behavioral specifics: the 20% tolerance, closest-match ordering, and the return composition (full metrics + similarity score). It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond the basic safety implied by readOnlyHint.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences immediately communicate what, how, and what the result looks like. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (full metrics plus normalized score) and the sorting. It omits the fact that searchDepth limits to recent state, which could matter for older reference activities, but the overall context is reasonably complete for a read-only search 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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds higher-level meaning by explaining the similarity criteria (type, distance, duration) and tolerance, but it does not elaborate on limit/searchDepth beyond what the schema already documents. Useful but not compensating for missing schema details.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('activities similar to a reference activity'), explicit criteria (type, distance, duration), and clear output behavior (closest matches first, with full metrics and similarity score). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like compare_activities or list_recent_activities.

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 a natural use case: given a reference activity, retrieve similar ones. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as compare_activities or list_recent_activities, nor does it mention any exclusions. It provides context but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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