search_conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts — results mirror list_conversations' summary fields and contain "no secrets" — but says nothing about pagination defaults or result caps.

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?

Front-loaded with the search keys in the first clause, and the whole thing is two short sentences. The duplicated Chinese sentence is redundant for a monolingual consumer but adds little bloat.

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 4-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, keys, optional filters, and return shape by reference to list_conversations. Only the absence of explicit sibling disambiguation keeps it from 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented structurally; the description only restates q plus the optional storeId/limit/offset. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load.

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+resource ("Search this merchant's conversations") and the two search keys (order number, buyer email). It gestures at the sibling relationship via "Same summary fields as list_conversations," though it never explicitly contrasts the two tools' purposes.

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: search when you have an order number or buyer email. But the description never says when NOT to use it (e.g., browse with list_conversations, or fetch one thread with get_conversation), even though those siblings exist and are the obvious alternatives.

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