ghl_conversation_ai_search_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context such as the GET endpoint, OAuth scopes, and pagination behavior, which are not covered by annotations.

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 with four sentences covering purpose, endpoint, scopes, and pagination. It is front-loaded with the main action, though the first line 'Search Agents' is redundant with the annotation title.

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?

For a search tool with pagination and no output schema, the description adequately covers the endpoint, scopes, and pagination. However, it does not explain what the response looks like, error conditions, or that the query parameter is optional.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds pagination grouping and mentions 'status and configuration' as search criteria, though these are not present in the schema. This adds slight confusion but overall adds some value beyond the schema.

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 'Searches for AI agents based on various criteria' and provides a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_conversation_ai_get_agent and ghl_conversation_search by focusing on search with filtering and full-text capabilities.

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 explains when to use the tool (searching agents by criteria) and includes pagination guidance with startAfter and limit. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_agent for a single agent.

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