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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the response is a bounded page, ordered newest-first, and explicitly listing exclusions (message bodies, message ids, customer identifiers, internal notes, arbitrary metadata, organization ids). This gives the agent a precise expectation of what to look for and what to ignore.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the scope and constraints. Every clause contributes: what it does, what it returns, and what it excludes. There is zero fluff, and the structure makes the most critical information appear first.

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?

Given the presence of a full output schema and four optional parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It clarifies the boundary of the response (what is included and excluded) and implies pagination via 'bounded' and the cursor parameter. The only minor omission is an explicit note about pagination behavior (e.g., how to request the next page), but the output schema likely covers this.

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% – all four parameters (limit, cursor, resolved, websiteId) are fully described. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the overall behavior (bounded, newest-first). With full coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and no compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('list'), a resource ('conversation activity'), and a bounded scope ('newest-first page in the authenticated Supovia organization'). It also enumerates exactly which fields are returned and which are excluded, making it unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_conversation or search_documents.

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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit. The phrase 'Returns only the conversation id needed for an explicit follow-up' hints that one should call this to obtain IDs then use get_conversation for details, but it does not explicitly contrast against other listing tools or state when not to use it. This meets the 'implied usage' bar, not the higher 'clear context with exclusions' level.

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