search_conversations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't mention the read-only nature, pagination behavior with the 'limit' parameter, what happens when no filters are provided, or result sorting order.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and contains no waste. However, given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), it is overly terse rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Inadequate for the complexity. With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and 5 parameters, the description should explain the optional filter behavior and pagination. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden for return value documentation, but parameter and behavioral gaps remain significant.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates partially by mapping 4 parameters to human-readable terms (guest name, listing, etc.), but completely omits the 'limit' parameter and doesn't clarify that all parameters are optional or explain the ID type flexibility (string/number).

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 clearly states the action ('Lookup') and resource ('conversations'), and lists the searchable fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_conversation_context' (which likely retrieves a single conversation versus searching multiple).

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_conversation_context' or 'list_unread_guest_threads'. The description lists search criteria but doesn't explain selection logic or prerequisites.

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