List conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the network eligibility constraint that determines whether the call will return data at all. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences: the operation and its return content come first, followed by the eligibility constraint. The network enumeration is long but each entry earns its place by preventing failed calls. No filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out (though the description does describe them), and annotations cover the safety profile. The network eligibility and account scoping make it usable. The main gap is the undocumented pagination and organization parameters.

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%; limit, offset, and id_organization are effectively undocumented. The description's 'on one account' loosely hints at id_account but adds no pagination semantics (limit/offset) or the meaning of id_organization, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Open private conversations on one account') and enumerates the returned fields (who it is with, last wrote, unread count). This implicitly separates it from siblings like list_messages (messages within a thread) and list_comments (public comments). An agent can identify the tool's job without opening 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?

Clearly states the key precondition: only chat-capable networks support this, with an explicit allow-list and deny-list. This prevents misuse on unsupported networks. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., list_messages, get_unread_counts) for related needs, so it is strong context but not full routing guidance.

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