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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral context: it requires business permission checks, has restrictions for free businesses, and involves a pre-check process. No contradictions with 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 efficient and front-loaded with purpose then usage guidelines. However, it could be slightly more concise by trimming phrases like 'Before offering this action or requesting its inputs'.

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?

With 4 unspecified parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers permissions well but fails to explain parameters, pagination, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, yet the description fails to explain any of the 4 parameters (communityId, pageNo, pageSize, messageStatus). It only implies communityId via 'managed community' but provides no semantic details for usage.

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 lists Magic Reach messages for a managed community. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_magic_reach_message_recipients or list_magic_reach_message_links by specifying the resource as 'messages'.

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 provides explicit guidance: check business permissions, free businesses cannot use, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings, and never proceed when access is blocked. It clearly states when and how to use the tool.

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