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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about how chat IDs are obtained and that account-wide chat listing is not supported for LinkedIn, but this LinkedIn guidance is somewhat irrelevant since the schema only accepts whatsapp, instagram, and telegram.

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 organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is repetitive ('Do not use a person name as chat_id' appears alongside 'Never pass: person name, user_id, message_id') and spends significant space on LinkedIn behavior for a tool whose schema excludes LinkedIn as an option.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should more fully describe what the response contains; it only implies chat IDs via 'Obtain with: provider list conversations/inbox chats -> chat.id'. It also leaves several parameters unexplained, making the definition adequate but incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 only 20%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented limit, cursor, or is_unread parameters. It explains how to obtain a chat_id but does not clarify the meaning or expected values of most input 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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('List/search conversations' to map to exact chat_id) and clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from simple chat reading or messaging. It also names the exact alternative flows for LinkedIn, preventing confusion with sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before reading/replying or resolving message_id'), what not to pass ('Never pass: person name, user_id, message_id'), and gives a precise alternative path for LinkedIn. This gives an agent actionable routing guidance.

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