list_unread_guest_threads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context about return content ('raw unread metadata' and 'derived attention signals') but fails to disclose safety properties (read-only status), rate limits, or pagination behavior expected for a listing operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place: 'recent' implies time-sensitivity, 'raw unread metadata' specifies data type, and 'derived attention signals' indicates computed value-add beyond basic listing.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately avoids detailing return structures. However, with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the tool lacks complete documentation for its two optional parameters. Adequate but clear gaps remain for a 2-parameter tool.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'recent' loosely implies limiting behavior related to the 'limit' parameter, the description completely omits explanation of both 'limit' and 'messageLimit' parameters and their interaction (e.g., whether messageLimit controls preview depth).

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 provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('guest threads'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like search_conversations or get_reservation_brief by focusing on 'guest' and 'unread' scope. It loses one point for not clarifying what 'attention signals' specifically represent (e.g., priority scoring).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_conversations or get_conversation_context. It does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or when this unread-focused listing is preferable to general searches.

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