search_conversations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns only slim data without conversation parts, which is good. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and key constraints. Every sentence provides critical information without waste.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the slim return format and mentions pagination via the 'next' cursor. It could be enhanced by explicitly listing the returned fields or describing pagination response shape, but for 3 parameters it is largely sufficient.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing a concrete example of the query object format and showing how to filter by assignee or contact email. It also clarifies the default and max for per_page and explains the pagination cursor.

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 the tool searches Intercom conversations, specifies the return format ('SLIM list with id, state, contact, timestamps') and explicitly contrasts with get_conversation for full content, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 tells when to use get_conversation for full content, implying this tool is for slim results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives for other scenarios, but the context is clear enough.

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