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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond by disclosing the result shape (first questions only, no answers) and two non-obvious behaviors: grouped counts are estimates, and exact per-category counts appear only when Chat Categories is on. It doesn't mention pagination/truncation beyond the limit param, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and then usage, caveat, and the pointer to the alternative. No filler; 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so reasonably: first questions only, no answers, plus category counts when enabled. Ordering/pagination of the returned list is the only notable omission for a list tool.

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 days, limit, per_chat and website_id are already documented in the schema with ranges and defaults. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, 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 and resource (list visitor questions) plus the exact scope: the first questions of each conversation, without the chatbot's answers. This distinguishes it cleanly from list_conversations and get_conversation, which the agent can tell apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit use case (find what customers ask about most by grouping by meaning) and names the alternative for a different need: 'To read one conversation in full, use get_conversation.' When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both present.

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