List visitors chatting right now

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

The annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the plan requirement and clarifies the data scope, with no contradictory behavior. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single, focused sentence that lists what is returned, followed by the plan requirement. Every part is useful and there is no redundant or ambiguous wording.

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?

The description names the key return fields and the plan constraint, which is sufficient for a simple listing tool without an output schema. It does not specify ordering or response shape, but those are not essential for core usage.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, including limit bounds and website_id semantics. The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'visitors currently in a chat', with specific fields returned (page, country, duration, human takeover). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_conversations by focusing on live visitor sessions rather than conversation records.

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?

The phrase 'currently in a chat' implies real-time monitoring use, and 'Needs the Standard plan or higher' gives a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as list_conversations or say when not to use this tool, so guidance is largely implied.

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