compare_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a read-only comparison and 'transparent metric ranges' but does not state side effects, authentication, failure behavior, or how ranges are computed.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and 'Compare' plus the 2-10 constraint are front-loaded. The trailing 'transparent metric ranges' is ambiguous but does not waste 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 one-parameter comparison tool with an output schema, the definition conveys the core call pattern. The main gap is the vague 'transparent metric ranges' and absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_activities or get_activity, though the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 0%, and the only parameter is activity_ids; the description adds the key constraint that 2-10 IDs are expected. It does not clarify duplicate handling, ordering, or whether IDs must reference existing activities, but for a single obvious parameter this is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('activity details'), and its scope ('2-10') distinguishes it from single-item getters like get_activity. The phrase 'transparent metric ranges' is imprecise but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 '2-10' range implies this tool is for multi-activity comparison, while siblings like get_activity or get_activities are likely for single or list retrieval. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving selection to inference.

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