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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely repeats 'Reads' without adding any additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or rate limits. No extra value is provided beyond the structured 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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 straightforward read operation with a readOnly annotation and an output schema, the description is functionally complete. It lacks usage guidance, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining structured context.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the description is not required to add parameter details. The description does not mention any parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema coverage.

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 verb ('Reads'), resource ('messages from a Microsoft Teams channel'), and scope ('channel'), distinguishing it from chat message tools like teams_read_chat_messages. The name and title reinforce this unambiguous action.

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 implies the tool is used when reading messages from a Teams channel, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as teams_search_messages or teams_read_chat_messages. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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