CPA: chats for a period

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only, spends no money' and adds a rate limit of 40 requests/min, providing useful operational context beyond annotations.

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 four sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient, though the last sentence about limit could be integrated. Overall, it avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema, the description mentions that returned actionId values are suitable for specific follow-up tools, providing critical context. However, it does not describe the full structure of a chat object, which might be needed for complete understanding. Overall, it's sufficient for most use cases.

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% with well-described parameters. The description adds minor context like 'starting from the given moment (by the date field)' and 'paginated list', but does not provide significant new parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already offers.

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 clearly states the tool returns a paginated list of target CPA chats by date, distinguishes itself from the deprecated v1 version, and specifies it is the current version (v2). The verb 'Returns' and resource 'paginated list of target CPA chats' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states it is read-only and spends no money, guiding appropriate use. It also recommends this over the deprecated v1 and explains that returned actionId values are suitable for follow-up tools (cpa_chat_by_action_id or filing a complaint). However, it does not mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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