chatwoot_get_contact_conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the 'Returns' phrasing is consistent with that safety profile. The description adds the useful scope that the full contact history is returned, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, size limits, or what happens when a contact has no conversations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, and the Args section is compact and scannable. The 'output_format: Output format.' line is tautological and adds no value, which prevents a perfect score.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the required parameter, and the output format options. Missing details such as pagination and exact return structure are not critical given the low complexity, but would push it to a 5.

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?

contact_id gains actionable meaning through the instruction to use chatwoot_search_contacts to get IDs, which goes beyond the schema's integer type. However, output_format is merely restated as 'Output format,' adding no real semantics beyond the schema's enum and default.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('full conversation history of a specific contact'), which clearly states what the tool does. This contact-scoped wording distinguishes it from sibling conversation tools like get_conversation_messages or search_conversations.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite by pointing to chatwoot_search_contacts for obtaining contact_id. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_conversation_messages or search_conversations; the choice is only implied by the resource wording.

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