CPA: chats for a period (v1, deprecated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context like 'Read-only, spends no money' and mentions pagination, which complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that first state purpose and deprecation, then add safety and comparison. Every sentence serves a purpose, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (list endpoint with three parameters), no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention the return format (e.g., array of chat objects) but this is not critical for functionality.

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% and the description adds meaning for the key parameter dateTimeFrom by stating 'created starting from the given moment'. It also implies the role of limit and offset via 'paginated list', adding value 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?

The description explicitly states the verb 'Returns', the resource 'target CPA chats', and the scope 'created starting from the given moment'. It also distinguishes from the sibling cpa_chats_by_time_v2 by noting deprecation and identical semantics with a higher request limit.

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 description clearly indicates the tool is deprecated and recommends v2 with reasoning (higher request limit). It also notes read-only nature and no monetary cost. While it does not explicitly list when-not conditions, the deprecation statement provides strong guidance.

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