therapyportal_list_message_threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering, the read-state side effect (none), the empty-inbox shape (`threads: []`), and an untrusted-third-party-content warning against prompt injection. That last point is behavioral context no annotation conveys.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information — scope/ordering first, then the read-state clarification, then the empty case, then the safety note. No repetition of the tool name or schema.

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-value burden and covers ordering and the empty case, but does not indicate what fields a thread object contains (e.g., subject, participants, unread count). For a simple two-parameter list tool this is nearly complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters and a baseline 3 applies. The description adds provenance for patient_id (derive it from therapyportal_list_clients), which is not in the schema and helps avoid guessing IDs; limit remains schema-only, which is acceptable.

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 one client's secure-message conversations'), plus scope (one client), domain (TherapyPortal), and ordering (newest first). An agent can distinguish this from therapyportal_get_thread_messages purely from the description.

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?

Names the prerequisite source for patient_id (therapyportal_list_clients) and clarifies that listing does not mark anything read, which is decision-relevant context. It stops short of explicitly routing to the sibling get_thread_messages for reading a thread's contents, so it's clear but not fully prescriptive about alternatives.

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