conversation_reply_window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the underlying Meta 24h business rule that governs the answer. It does not say what the answer looks like (boolean vs. expiry timestamp vs. remaining time), and there is no output schema to compensate, which is a real gap for a tool whose entire output is the answer.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core answer ('Diz se dá para responder com texto livre...'), followed by the governing rule and the fallback. No filler, though the parenthetical '(template_send)' is the only structural signal and the text is dense.

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 one-parameter read-only check the description covers the domain rule well, but it leaves the return contract undefined despite having no output schema. An agent knows why the tool exists yet still cannot anticipate what it will receive back (allowed/blocked, hours remaining, reason).

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'conversation_id' (CRM-returned UUID or numeric id). The description adds nothing about the identifier or its format, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific check ('Diz se dá para responder com texto livre numa conversa') tied to a concrete resource (the 24h Meta reply window). It is unambiguous that this is an eligibility/predicate lookup rather than a send action, though it does not name a sibling that performs the actual free-text reply, so the boundary with a sending tool stays implicit.

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 gives the selection rule clearly: free text is allowed only within 24h of the customer's last message, and outside that window the approved template route ('template_send') must be used instead. It lacks an explicit 'call this before sending' instruction, but the when/when-not condition and the alternative are both present.

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