get_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a SLIM version including triage essentials, filters out pure system events, flags parts from_quick_reply, and provides total_parts/included_parts counts. This goes beyond basic functionality.

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 detailed but front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure, including what elements are included (source, ticket, contacts, message parts) and excluded (pure system events), as well as counts. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the output.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantic information beyond 'by ID', which is already clear. Thus, 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 states it retrieves a single Intercom conversation by ID and details the SLIM structure, which differentiates it from siblings like search_conversations. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'Intercom conversation' make the purpose 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 tool's single-purpose nature is evident, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like search_conversations. However, the description's focus on a single conversation implicitly directs usage for retrieving one specific conversation.

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