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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the bulk support behavior (accepting 'ids') and notes the endpoint, which is additional context. However, it does not disclose details about error handling, return format, or pagination, so transparency remains moderate.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose (fetch by ID) and adds bulk support as a secondary note. No wasted words, easy to scan.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what each parameter does and what the response looks like. It covers 'id' and 'ids' implicitly, but leaves 'query' and 'account' unexplained. Given the simplicity of a GET operation, it might suffice, but gaps in parameter understanding and response format make it only partially complete.

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 the description carries the burden. It implicitly explains 'id' (by ID) and 'ids' (bulk support), which are the core parameters. However, 'query' and 'account' are not mentioned at all, leaving them unexplained. The description partially compensates but does not fully cover all parameters.

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 an activity by ID, referencing the exact endpoint (GET /api/v1/activities/{id}). It also mentions bulk support via 'ids', which distinguishes it from other activity tools like datacrazy_activities_list or datacrazy_activities_patch.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used when you have a specific ID or ID list, nor does it differentiate from datacrazy_activities_list or other get operations for other resources. There is 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.