List DM conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is handled; the description adds value with the required scope (instagram_business_manage_messages) plus sort order and what identifiers come back. Remaining gap is pagination behavior, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first covers ordering and content, the second covers return values, intended downstream tools, and auth scope. Ordering 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly takes on the job of describing return contents (conversation IDs, IGSID). Pagination via the 'after' cursor and the response_format choice are only in the schema, a modest gap for a small read 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?

With 67% schema coverage across 3 params, the schema documents 'after' and 'response_format'; only 'limit' lacks a description. The description adds no parameter detail at all (no mention of cursor paging or page size), so it neither compensates nor regresses relative to the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the account's Instagram DM conversations'), specifies ordering ('most recent first') and payload ('with who they're with'), and even names the downstream consumers (ig_get_messages, ig_send_message). An agent can distinguish it from ig_list_media or ig_list_comments without opening a schema.

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?

Makes the use case explicit by framing this as the discovery step that produces conversation IDs for ig_get_messages and IGSIDs for ig_send_message. It does not state exclusions or note that it cannot filter, but the entry-point role is unambiguous.

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