intercom_get_conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of auth/permission requirements, not-found behavior, or the shape of the returned conversation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and lookup key come first. It is efficient but so terse that it leaves behavioral questions unanswered rather than being optimally scoped.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition is adequate; there is no output schema to describe. Minor gap: it does not indicate what a returned conversation contains or what happens when the id is invalid.

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 both access_token and conversation_id are already documented; the description only restates that lookup is keyed on the id. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single Intercom conversation') and the lookup key ('by id'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list tool. It stops short of explicitly naming intercom_list_conversations as the alternative for bulk retrieval.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus intercom_list_conversations or intercom_search_contacts, and no preconditions or error cases (e.g., unknown id) are mentioned. The agent must infer that 'single ... by id' means one record at a time.

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