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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns messages and next_cursor, and company callers see only both-side messages.

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 English portion is front-loaded and efficient, covering purpose, parameters, return values, and visibility in two sentences. The Chinese translation duplicates the same content, which is redundant for an agent but does not make the description excessively long.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains inputs, pagination, return fields, and caller-specific visibility. Minor omissions such as ordering or default limit do not materially block correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names all three parameters and explains their roles: order_pack_id identifies the pack, limit and cursor control pagination, and next_cursor is returned for continuing. It does not repeat constraints such as limit maximum 100, but the core semantics are covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List order pack messages' and 'Read messages for order_pack_id'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling write operations such as post_order_pack_message and from list_order_packs.

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 usage by saying to read messages for an order_pack_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The posting counterpart is only inferable from sibling names, not called out in the description.

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