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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the 'Read-only' sentence adds little. What does add value beyond annotations is the ordering guarantee (newest first by original message date) and the explicit warning that capture content is third-party data subject to prompt injection — a behavioral trait no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by a compact filter inventory and one safety sentence. Each sentence carries distinct information — no restatement of the name and no filler.

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 10-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, filtering, and data-handling cautions well. Gaps remain around the 'session' filter, the 'limit' parameter's default/pagination behavior, and the shape of a returned capture, though the media enumeration hints at record content.

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 only 20% (only label and media are documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the useful filters, clarifies 'label' takes an id or name, gives the accepted label_status/store_status values, and specifies ISO date format for since/until and text-search semantics for q. 'session' and 'limit' remain unexplained in both places, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource: items the caller sent to the OrgLines Telegram bot, explicitly framed as their personal intake, with the media types and ordering ('newest first by ORIGINAL message date') named. An agent can distinguish this from intake_get_capture (single item) or org-level listing tools from the description alone.

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 scope statement ('their personal intake') and the full filter menu tell the agent how to narrow the list and what this tool covers versus broader lists. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as intake_get_capture for fetching a single record, which keeps it short of a 5.

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