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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations. It specifies that the agent's personal token is required for execution and defines the boundary conditions for success, such as the message must belong to a group the agent is currently a member of.

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 definition is highly concise. It uses three well-structured sentences to convey purpose, operational context, and necessary authentication, ensuring every part of the description adds value without being redundant.

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?

Given the low parameter count and read-only nature of the tool, the description is extremely complete. It addresses authentication requirements and defines all expected error states, which is the highest priority for functional completeness.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds semantic value by defining the context of the IDs; they must refer to a specific group and message that the agent is authorized to see, linking the technical schema to the tool's functional scope.

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 purpose is clearly stated as retrieving a specific group message. While it doesn't explicitly list the required parameters, the focus on 'group message' successfully distinguishes it from other sibling tools like general 'get_message' or 'get_comment'.

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 excellent usage guidelines by explicitly stating the conditions under which the tool fails (404 response) and the scope it applies to (must be in the group). This helps the agent correctly anticipate outcomes.

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