Search GoHighLevel Conversations

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint, such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or that it returns multiple 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?

The description is very concise, a single sentence. While brevity is good, it omits essential context and feels too minimal to be effective for an 8-parameter tool.

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 lack of output schema and 8 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, filtering behavior, or how to use the search effectively. Annotations provide safety cues but not usage context.

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?

With 63% schema coverage, the description does not explain any parameters. It does not add meaning for undocumented parameters like contactId, assignedTo, or lastMessageType. The schema provides some descriptions, but the description adds no value.

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 states it searches conversations using a specific endpoint, which is clear and distinguishes from sibling tools that manage conversations differently. However, it could be more specific about what 'search' entails (e.g., filtering by fields).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other conversation-related tools like ghl_get_conversation_messages. It lacks when/not-to-use and alternative recommendations.

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