zendesk_qa_search_conversations

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

Beyond the token requirement, the description reveals no behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. With no annotations, more disclosure is needed.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The purpose and a key requirement are 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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate. However, it lacks details on what the search returns (conversation summaries, etc.) and how to use the results.

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 covers the only parameter (email) with a description that matches the tool description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantics beyond repeating 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?

Description clearly states action (search), resource (Zendesk QA conversations), and criterion (by email address). This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like zendesk_qa_get_reviews or general zendesk_search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zendesk_search or other QA tools. The description does not provide exclusionary context or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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