Get Conversation

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that username resolution click-visits each row and 'may mark it as read' (a real side effect), describes the indexable-prefix limits, the refusal behavior for out-of-prefix indexes, and that search is only a fallback. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious operational context structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and the two lookup paths are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle paragraphs are dense and hard to parse (e.g. 'indexable sequence ends before the first unresolved click, missing matching click target, or admitted row'), and the LinkedIn-sidebar implementation rationale is arguably more internal detail than an agent needs. It is informative but not tight.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still covers resolution paths, side effects, failure/refusal conditions, and fallback ordering. For a 3-param read tool with light annotations, nothing material an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains the index resolution semantics, the prefix barrier that causes an index to be refused, and that a known thread_id bypasses resolution entirely. This goes beyond the schema's terse per-field notes.

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 and resource ('Read a specific messaging conversation') and immediately specifies the two identification paths, which cleanly separates it from get_inbox (list) and search_conversations (search). It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete guidance on when to use linkedin_username vs thread_id ('Pass thread_id directly to skip this enumeration') and points to search_conversations for enumerating thread IDs. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a direct contrast with get_inbox, so it is clear context without full routing.

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