ig_conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context about the returned shape (last message plus reply-status), but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or rate limits on a DM-listing endpoint. Adequate, not rich, given the low annotation 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?

One tight sentence with no filler, and the resource plus the return contents are front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though there is no structure to organize multiple concerns because only one concern is addressed.

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 does useful work by summarizing the payload. But two of three parameters go unexplained in both schema and prose, and for a DM-listing tool an agent still lacks guidance on default result size and how to page through conversations.

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 description coverage is only 33% — just the 'account' parameter is documented. The description never mentions the 'limit' default of 20 or the 'only_awaiting_reply' toggle, even though the phrase 'si esperan respuesta' gestures vaguely at the latter without naming it as a filter parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lista conversaciones de DM') plus what each item contains (last message, awaiting-reply flag), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as ig_inbox or ig_messages, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus ig_inbox, ig_messages, or ig_comments_unanswered, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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