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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: result ordering ('newest first'), the fields returned (id, title, dashboard URL), and the recommended next call. It does not discuss pagination behavior directly, though the schema's cursor field covers that.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it searches and returns first, then the follow-up tool, then the exclusion case. Zero filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 values need not be spelled out, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies scope, ordering, and tool routing, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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%, so limit, query, and cursor are all documented in the schema itself (including literal, case-insensitive matching semantics). The description's mention of searchable fields marginally reinforces the query parameter but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) plus resource (customer support conversations) and enumerates the searchable fields (subject, visitor name/email, message text). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_knowledge or list_recent_conversations without opening either 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 routes the agent: use `fetch` with a returned id for the full transcript, and use `list_recent_conversations` when the goal is 'what came in recently' with no keywords. Both the follow-up path and the exclusion condition are named.

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