get_conversation_histories_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top: not that results are cursor-paginated, not that summary_mode/data_collection_ids change payload shape, not the <=100 page cap behavior.

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?

Two words is not conciseness but under-specification. For a 41-parameter listing endpoint, the description is sized far below what the task requires; nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said.

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?

This is one of the most complex list endpoints in the set (41 optional filters, pagination, response-shape toggles) with no output schema to fall back on. A two-word description leaves the agent with no notion of filtering semantics, pagination, or result shape beyond what it must reconstruct from the schema alone.

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 95%, so the schema itself documents nearly all 41 parameters including formats like criteria_id:result and id:op:value. With coverage this high the baseline of 3 applies; the description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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?

"Get Conversations" is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, with no verb nuance, no scope statement, and no differentiation from near-identical siblings like get_conversation_history_route, get_conversation_summary_route, or list_workspace_conversation_tickets_route. It conveys only the bare resource, and only because the plural noun appears in 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this paginated/filterable list route versus the singular get_conversation_history_route or the message-search routes (smart_search_conversation_messages_route, text_search_conversation_messages_route). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention that results are paginated via cursor.

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