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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the returned fields (text, visitor id, agent id, timestamp in ms, isPushed) and the underlying REST endpoint GET /pushedMessages/{id}, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource identity front-loaded and the field list and endpoint trailing. Nothing is redundant, though the colon-separated field list is slightly compressed for scanning.

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 no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the missing piece and it is present; the endpoint path also anchors the call. What remains absent is any failure behavior (e.g. unknown id) or usage framing, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 100% and the message_id parameter already documents its origin (send-call reply or webhook). The description's 'by id' adds nothing new, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (a pushed/automated message) scoped to a single record by id. The parenthetical '(automated)' disambiguates it from chatra_get_message, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 never says when to use this versus chatra_get_message or chatra_push_message; the only implied guidance is 'by id'. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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