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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine behavior: result ordering, the direct/group taxonomy, chat_id prefixes per channel, and the cross-tool note that groups are read/written like any other dialog via get_messages and send_operator_message. It does not mention pagination behavior or default hiding of archived dialogs in prose.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then the taxonomy, then the filter, then the cross-tool note. Dense but earns most of its words; the chat_id prefix catalogue is slightly heavy for a tool-selection blurb.

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?

For a read-only, fully annotated, fully schema-described list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, resource definition, and filtering adequately. The main gap is not routing the agent away from near-duplicate siblings such as dosai_list_wa_groups and dosai_search_conversation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that kind splits the two dialog types and by giving the chat_id shape that distinguishes a direct chat from a group (wg_ vs wz_/tg_/ig_ prefixes, client_name as group subject). That adds interpretive meaning beyond the enum text.

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 dialogs') plus ordering ('most recently active first'), and defines what a dialog is with concrete chat_id formats for direct vs group. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling listers like dosai_list_wa_groups or dosai_search_conversation, so an agent must infer which listing endpoint to pick.

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?

'Pass kind to get only one of them' is parameter usage, not when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit comparison to dosai_search_conversation, dosai_list_leads, or dosai_list_wa_groups, so the choice among listing tools is only implied by the word 'dialogs.'

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