list_sms_threads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-like operation by listing, and it documents pagination (`per_page` max 250, page 1-indexed) and auto-resolution of `account_id`. It also indicates the return type is per JSON string, which is useful. It stops short of explicitly stating the operation is read-only, but the verb and mention of an update separate centrally-con noted the distinction.

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 organized into a main purpose sentence, a short argument list, and a return section. The opening contrast with a sibling tool is front-loaded and efficient. The block format is easy to parse, though it is a bit long because of the every-parameter details. Overall, each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description fully specifies how to call the tool, what each parameter means, and what will be returned (the full shape of each `sms_thread`). It covers pagination, auto-resolution, and the distinction from a sibling, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful semantics for every parameter: `account_id` auto-resolver, `company_id` filters to a company, `per_page` page size and max 250, `page` 1-indexed. This goes far beyond the bare property titles and fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with 'List SMS threads' — a clear verb-product pair — and immediately distinguishes from `list_text_messages` by noting the latter returns conversation transcripts while threads carry the lead-management surface (notes, value, tags, lead_qualification, state). This lets an agent pick the correct listing tool without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly contrasts with `list_text_messages` and mentions that threads are updatable via `update_sms_thread`, giving context for when to use this list and when not. It does not mention `get_sms_thread` for fetching a single thread, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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