Search GHL Conversations

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds some behavioral context (returns threaded conversations with latest message info) but omits pagination, ordering, or filter combination semantics. Credit is given for the annotation coverage, but the added description is minimal.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is an ideal length for a straightforward search tool.

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?

With 5 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and partial return info but leaves out important details: the meaning of locationId, the role of limit (pagination), and the exact output shape beyond 'threaded with latest message info'. It is adequate for an agent to understand the basic function, but not fully complete.

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 only 40% (query and contactId have descriptions). The description mentions contact ID, query, and status, but merely restates the schema's existing descriptions without adding meaning for those params. It completely ignores limit and locationId, and does not clarify how filters combine or default values. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the action (search) and resource (conversations), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming specific filter dimensions (contact ID, query, status) and return characteristics (threaded conversations with latest message info). This makes the tool's 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?

Usage is implied through the verb 'search' and the listed filters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like ghl_get_conversation or ghl_get_messages, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but under-specified.

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