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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is read or changed,' explicitly telling the agent the call is a no-op rather than a read. It also explains the reason (no safe user-scoped query), which annotations cannot convey. It does not describe what an invocation returns (error vs empty result).

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 short sentences with the unsupported status stated up front and no filler. Efficient for its purpose, though the first sentence's rationale could be trimmed.

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 tool is a deliberate no-op with no output schema and no required parameters, the description supplies the one thing an agent needs: that calling it accomplishes nothing and why. Missing only a redirect to an alternative 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 0% for four parameters (orgId, confirm, idempotencyKey, acknowledgedAmountUsd) and the description mentions none of them. For an unsupported stub the parameters are moot, but the description provides no compensation for the total documentation gap.

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 never says what the tool would do beyond the title 'List my chats'; its actual content is a status disclosure that consumer chat threads are not exposed via a safe user-scoped query. An agent can determine the tool is unusable, which is the operative fact, but the purpose itself is only inferable from the name.

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?

'This tool is not yet supported' effectively tells the agent not to invoke it, which is the key routing signal. However, it does not point at a workable substitute (e.g. get_chat_summary) even though a sibling exists, so the guidance is negative-only.

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