hires_get_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read operation and describes return content ('sender account, schedule timestamps, cancelability'), but it omits details on error cases, authorization requirements, or any side-effect-free guarantee beyond the 'Get' verb.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It avoids repetition and fluff.

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 simple one-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and key returned fields. It could be more complete by mentioning alternative tools or potential error behavior, but overall it is adequate for the low complexity.

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% with the parameter 'id' described as 'Message ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond re-stating 'by ID', so it does not elevate above the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('scheduled message by ID'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like hires_list_messages and hires_get_notification_message by emphasizing 'scheduled' and 'scheduler-backed'.

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 implies its use through 'by ID' and 'scheduled message', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No comparison to list/update/delete tools is provided.

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