List B2match conversations

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral value on top: it discloses that listing does NOT mark conversations as read, and that results carry last-message previews rather than full history. It stops short of stating result ordering, preview truncation, or cursor expiry behavior.

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 sentences, no filler. The core capability and pagination come first, followed by the side-effect note and sibling routing, which is the right order.

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?

For a read-only, three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly complete: scope, previews, pagination, side-effect and alternative are all covered. The only gap is result ordering / cursor lifetime, which an agent might want.

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 the meanings of 'event', 'first', and 'after' are already documented in the schema. The description only implies pagination ('paginated') without adding syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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 and resource ('List ... conversations') plus scope ('logged-in viewer's') and content ('last-message previews, paginated'). It also implicitly contrasts with get_conversation, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling that returns full message history.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition selecting it: 'prefer it over get_conversation unless full message history is needed.' That is a direct when/when-not rule, not an inference.

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