List inbox conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces read-only and adds real value: the exact row fields returned (id, channel, preview, unread, tags, waiting, opt-out, 24h window), the 30-per-page cap, and a prompt-injection warning about untrusted names/message text. It stops short of noting cursor lifetime/expiry or behavior when filters match nothing.

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?

Front-loaded with scope, then result fields, then filters, then pagination, then a safety note — a logical order. The field enumeration is long but justified because there is no output schema; a couple of clauses could still be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return shape and does so completely — every row field, ordering, page size, and cursor mechanics — plus an injection-safety note appropriate for externally-authored message content.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description goes beyond it by tying channelId to postfjord_list_channels, tying tag to tag names, restating the 30-per-page limit, and explaining that cursor comes from the previous page's nextCursor. It adds cross-tool and pagination semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('List inbox conversations / The Inbox: direct message conversations on Instagram, Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp'), plus ordering ('newest first') and scope. It is clearly distinct from postfjord_get_conversation (singular) and postfjord_list_channels (which it references as a lookup source).

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?

Tells the agent the three filter dimensions (unread, channel id from postfjord_list_channels, tag name) and how to paginate ('pass nextCursor as cursor for the next page'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over fetching a single conversation, but the list-vs-get split is implicit and the operational guidance is clear.

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