search_conversations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and result, but does not mention that it is read-only, how filters combine, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple filtering options.

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 a single concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and return behavior. No filler words or redundant information.

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?

The description is adequate for a basic search tool: it states the purpose and that a list is returned. However, it lacks details about default behavior when no filters are provided, pagination, and result ordering. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description could be more complete.

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 description does not need to restate parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how filters interact or default ordering. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Search and filter') and the resource ('conversations in GoHighLevel'), and explicitly states the return type ('a list of conversations'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_conversation, which presumably fetches a single conversation.

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 implies usage for finding conversations by criteria, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_conversation or create_conversation. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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