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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds one behavioral detail ('most recently active first') which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like archived conversations being hidden by default or that pagination is used, though these are covered in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence of 7 words: 'List dialogs with clients, most recently active first.' It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose and ordering without redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate when combined with the rich schema and annotations. It provides the essential ordering behavior. However, it omits high-level context like project scoping (though project_id is in the schema) and does not explicitly state that it returns a paginated list of conversations. This is a minor gap given the schema covers the details.

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% — every parameter has an appropriate description in the schema. The description itself does not add parameter-level details, which is acceptable per the baseline. The schema descriptions for page, limit, status, project_id, and include_archived are clear and self-sufficient.

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 and resource: 'List dialogs with clients' clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_projects, list_leads) by the unique resource 'dialogs/conversations', and adds an ordering detail ('most recently active first') that further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that it operates at the conversation level and that individual messages would be retrieved via dosai_get_messages. It also doesn't state that it requires a project_id. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and schema.

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