im_chat_messages_period

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 discloses that the tool paginates through im.dialog.messages.get via FIRST_ID, and the schema includes max_pages with description 'Protection against long chats.' This reveals the iterative fetching behavior. However, it does not explain the return structure, error handling, or rate limits, which could be relevant for such a read operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds the key implementation detail (pagination via FIRST_ID). Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a clear operational summary: purpose, date range, and pagination strategy. The schema covers parameter details. It lacks explicit return format details, but this is likely consistent with sibling message tools. It could be improved by noting the order of messages or timezone handling, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the paging mechanism (FIRST_ID) that relates to page_limit and max_pages, but this is already partially implicit in the schema descriptions. It does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool's function: 'Get dialog messages for a date range' (Получить сообщения диалога за диапазон дат). It also specifies the implementation method ('paging through im.dialog.messages.get via FIRST_ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like im_chat_messages (likely for all messages) and im_thread_messages.

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 usage context: when a date range is needed, and indicates the underlying API method for pagination. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use im_chat_messages for unfiltered retrieval' or 'not for thread messages.' The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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