Get Conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose what the read returns (full thread plus lead profile and campaign context), but adds nothing about access scope, thread limits, or behavior on missing/closed conversations.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a one-line rationale for reading the full thread. The second paragraph is motivational rather than factual, but it is brief and steers agent behavior.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, scope, and workflow fit for a simple one-parameter read. The gap is the undocumented conversation_id, which is the only real omission.

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 the single required conversation_id parameter. The description never explains the identifier's format or where it comes from (e.g. from get_inbox or get_lead), leaving the only parameter's semantics undocumented.

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 (read) and resource (one full conversation thread) and even names the payload contents (lead profile, campaign context). It is not explicitly contrasted with siblings like get_inbox or get_lead, but the scope wording makes it distinguishable on its own.

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?

"Read the whole thread before drafting" gives clear workflow context — use this prior to composing a reply — which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_inbox for the list view) or stating exclusions, so it is not a 5.

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