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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it limits retrieval to at most 50 recent records, specifies the type of data returned (status fields and sender-category counts), and enumerates a long list of excluded data types. This goes well beyond annotations and clearly informs the agent of operational constraints and privacy boundaries.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and key limits are front-loaded, and the exclusion list is placed after the main intent. It is tightly written while conveying all essential 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?

The tool has a single parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema, so the return structure is documented elsewhere. The description covers the scope (one conversation), the data limits, and exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% for conversationId ('Conversation id'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds the constraint that the conversation must be 'organization-owned', which is not in the schema and gives meaningful semantic context. This elevates it above the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Summarize' with a clear resource ('one organization-owned Supovia conversation') and explicitly states the returned data type ('safe status fields and sender-category counts'). It also enumerates what is excluded, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_conversations or open_customer_inbox_conversation. The purpose is unambiguous and not tautological.

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 implies when to use this tool (for a summary of a single conversation with restricted fields) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The exclusion list hints that other tools should be used for message bodies or IDs, but no direct routing to siblings is provided. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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