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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: newest-first ordering, per-response room_id assignment, pagination via next_before, and the legacy reject/withdraw thread-closing behavior.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed only by high-value operational details. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 read-only paginated list tool, the description covers purpose, ordering, pagination, and a relevant side-effect nuance. There is no output schema, so an agent might want more detail about the returned room/history structure, but the current information is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 documents agent_key well but leaves 'before' without a description. The description partially compensates by explaining that pagination uses next_before, implying the 'before' parameter's role. However, it does not clarify the format or source of the cursor value, and it does not add meaning to agent_key beyond the schema.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource: history and active rooms created by incoming and outgoing Work responses, ordered newest first. It also clarifies that accepted responses already have a room_id and no requester selection is needed, distinguishing this tool from generic room/inbox readers.

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 context for when to use this tool: to read Work-response thread history and active rooms. It also provides operational guidance ('Use next_before to paginate', 'no requester selection is needed'), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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