list_inbox_conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'status and detected intent', but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances such as pagination defaults, ordering, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains zero filler or redundant information.

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 the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's core role, the type of results (conversation status and intent), and a triage use case. It could mention alternatives like get_inbox_conversation_messages for deeper message retrieval, but this is not critical for selecting the tool correctly.

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 6 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as how 'q' interacts with threads or how 'intent' filtering behaves.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('unified-inbox conversations (threads)'), and specifies the valuable data included ('status and detected intent'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool list_emails by noting that the latter handles individual messages in a folder.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool ('Use this for triage') and provides a direct alternative ('use list_emails for individual messages in a folder'). This gives the agent clear decision criteria beyond the schema.

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