Search conversations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description states it 'Returns conversation threads with their ids and last-message info,' which adds behavioral detail beyond the schema and is consistent with a read-only operation. It does not contradict annotations. While it doesn't mention rate limits or auth, the read-only nature is already covered. The description adds useful context about the return payload.

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 concise and front-loaded. It states the action and resource first, then the optional filter, then the return info. Two sentences with no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description explains the return value ('conversation threads with their ids and last-message info'), which is important since there is no output schema. It also clarifies the scope (location) and optional contact filter. Pagination and limit behavior are not covered, but the schema provides defaults and bounds. Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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 75% (limit lacks a description but has default/max/min). The description mentions location and contact filter, which are already described in the schema, so it adds little beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't clarify the 'limit' parameter or elaborate on 'query' semantics. Given the high coverage, the description is adequate but not compensating for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search conversations in a location, optionally filtered to a contact.' It names the resource (conversations) and the action (search), and specifies the returned data (ids and last-message info). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ghl_get_messages, the verb and resource are specific enough to distinguish it. A minor gap is that it doesn't clarify how this differs from getting a single conversation, but it's a clear and actionable description.

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 gives context (search within a location, optional contact filter) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies this is for finding conversations, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance. The context provided is helpful, but exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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