conversations_get_message_recording

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the operation's safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details, such as what a recording actually represents (audio/video), the format of the response (URL, binary, etc.), or behavior when no recording exists. Since annotations carry the informational load and the description contributes nothing beyond the basic action, the score is low.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It merely restates the tool name ('Get Recording by Message ID' matches conversations_get_message_recording) without adding substantive detail. It lacks front-loaded, distinguishing information that would help an agent decide to use it. The brevity is not an asset because it sacrifices meaningful 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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., a URL to the recording, a file, or raw audio). It gives no indication of the return value, leaving the agent guessing. The annotations provide safety context but not operational completeness. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly interpret the tool's outcome.

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 covers both parameters with 100% description coverage: messageId is described as 'Message ID as string' and locationId has a clear description including a default value. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and there is no additional value from the description.

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 'Get Recording by Message ID' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (recording) keyed by message ID. It is specific enough to understand the core function. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools like conversations_get_message_transcription or conversations_download_message_transcription, which also retrieve message-associated artifacts. The name itself provides most of the clarity, so the description adds little beyond a restatement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getting a transcription or downloading a recording. No context is given about scenarios where this tool is preferred, prerequisites, or how it relates to other conversations_* tools. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and parameter schema.

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