superchat_list_contact_conversations

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: output is one page, returns conversation records rather than raw messages, and is scoped across contact channels. No contradiction with annotations. It could also explain pagination mechanics, but the schema already covers cursors.

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 purposeful sentences: the first states scope and action, the second clarifies output type and points to the message-history alternative. No filler, no restatement of the schema, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 only one required parameter, high schema coverage, and annotations declaring safety and idempotency, the description is complete for both selection and invocation. It covers page size, scope, output type, and the message alternative; no output schema is needed to explain the return value here.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not add parameter-level detail. It contributes the general context that threads are per contact and across channels, but this doesn't change the baseline of 3 for schema-heavy documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair — 'List one page of conversation threads for a contact across its channels' — and then draws a hard line between conversation records and message history, which differentiates it from the related list_conversations and list_conversation_messages tools.

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?

It states when to use the tool ('for a contact'), what it is not for ('Results are conversation records, not message history'), and names the alternative with a condition: 'use list_conversation_messages for messages when Enterprise access is enabled.' This is explicit routing rather than implied guidance.

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