List conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context around account scoping, network compatibility, and returned conversation fields, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or behavior on unsupported networks.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads purpose and output contents; the second gives precise supported and unsupported networks. Every 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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the remaining key context: account scope, network support boundaries, and the conversational information returned. It is slightly incomplete around pagination and unsupported-network behavior, but those are minor given the schema and annotations.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented limit and offset parameters. It reinforces that id_account identifies a single account, but adds no meaning to the pagination parameters, which are left entirely to inference from their names.

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 names a specific operation (opening/listing private conversations), a scoped resource (one account), and the exact output contents: who the conversation is with, when they last wrote, and unread count. It is clearly distinct from generic message tools and gives enough specificity to identify the tool without reading the schema.

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 provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance by listing networks that support chat and those that do not. It does not name sibling alternatives such as list_messages or get_unread_counts, so it stops short of fully routing between overlapping tools.

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