List conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: results span all groups, sort order is most-recent-first, and the pagination contract ('pass next_cursor back as cursor') is spelled out so the agent knows how to continue.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding, front-loaded with the inbox framing and immediately followed by scope, sort order, the filter hint, and pagination. Every sentence carries information.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and ordering, and it closes the pagination loop. Minor gaps remain (empty-inbox behavior, whether the total count is exposed), but an agent can call this correctly from what is given.

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 is 3; each parameter is already documented, including the 1–30 limit cap. The description only restates the cursor round-trip and the unread_only purpose, adding little meaning beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource — 'Lists your Skool Chat conversations across all groups' — plus ordering ('most recent first') and returned fields (other member, unread count, last message). This clearly separates it from the singular get_conversation sibling, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 only usage steer is 'Set unread_only to see only what needs an answer,' which implies an inbox-triage workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_conversation, list_notifications, or search_members, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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