CPA: chats for a period

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description reinforces that it is read-only and spends no money, and adds a rate limit of 40 requests/min. No contradictions.

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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states the function, second gives usage preference, third explains downstream use and rate limit. No unnecessary words.

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?

Describes the return type (paginated list of chats), mentions the key field (actionId) for downstream use, and gives rate limit. Without output schema, the description could be slightly more explicit about response structure, but it is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The tool description does not add any new information about parameter meaning beyond what's in 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 clearly states it returns a paginated list of target CPA chats starting from a given moment. It explicitly distinguishes this from the deprecated v1 and mentions downstream suitability for cpa_chat_by_action_id.

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?

It explicitly recommends using this over the deprecated v1, and notes that returned actionId values can be used with cpa_chat_by_action_id or for filing complaints. It does not cover when not to use it compared to other sibling tools, but provides clear context.

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