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

Annotations already declare this tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations: the data is public, chronological, scoped to one channel, and the cursor pattern is intended for gap-free polling. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint and has no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence carries targeted usage guidance about the polling cursor. Nothing here is redundant with the schema.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only polling tool: it says what it reads, from what scope, and how to paginate. With annotations covering safety and a full input/output schema present, no critical usage information is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all four parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the combined meaning of after/after_id in a polling flow: they come from the previous result and must be passed together to prevent missed lines or replays.

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 identifies the action and resource: 'Read chronological messages from one public channel.' It communicates that this is a read tool for a specific wire channel, and the verb differs from siblings such as send_wire_message. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other read-style sibling tools like get_root_history or read_ledger.

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?

It gives clear usage context for polling: pass after/after_id from the previous result to avoid gaps or replays. This is helpful when-to-use guidance for the pagination workflow, though it does not enumerate alternatives or explicit 'when not to use' rules.

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