get_recent_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves activities but does not clarify ordering, time range for 'recent', pagination, or that it also works for Opportunity. No return format or permissions are mentioned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without wasted words. It includes key information (tasks, events, calls) efficiently.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should mention what the response contains or any behavioral details. It does not, and it omits the Opportunity scope. For a list tool, this is a significant gap, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand what will be returned.

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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating the record type scope. It does not explain how 'limit' behaves beyond the schema's own description.

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 the tool retrieves recent activities (tasks, events, calls) for an account or contact, using an imperative verb 'Get' and a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling search/detail tools, but fails to mention Opportunity, which the schema explicitly includes, creating slight ambiguity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for activity history, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like get_account_details or search_all_records. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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