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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the safety burden is lifted. The description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: result ordering (newest first), workspace scoping, and that status filtering is optional. Pagination behavior is left implicit, which is documented in the cursor param.

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 tight sentences with no filler: scope and ordering are front-loaded, and the routing hint is appended rather than buried. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape details are correctly omitted, and the description covers scope, ordering, filtering, and when to prefer this over search. The only gap is that pagination is never hinted at in prose, though the cursor parameter documents it fully.

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%, including limits, cursor semantics, and an enum for status, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that status filtering is optional and adds no syntax or default details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the most recent support conversations in this workspace') with ordering ('newest first') and the optional status filter. It also carves out its territory against the sibling search tool ('rather than searching for specific words'), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the use case ('what came in today') and contrasts it with word-based lookup, which effectively points at the `search` sibling. It does not address other plausible siblings such as list_unanswered_questions or get_support_overview, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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