freelance_get_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it succeeds. It discloses the non-obvious side effect that reading a conversation "MARKS IT READ for this account," which clears the other side's unread signal, and it emphasizes that the alternative tool has no such effect.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the critical side-effect warning and routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted wording.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke it: the resource, the permission requirement, the side effect, and the correct alternative when summarising an inbox. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters: id as the conversation id and limit as the number of messages returned newest first. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 states the exact resource: "One thread and its messages." It clearly identifies the operation as retrieving a single conversation thread, and the contrast with freelance_list_conversations in the usage note differentiates it from the closest sibling.

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 explicitly says when not to use this tool: "Do not sweep every thread to summarise an inbox unless the person asked you to." It names the alternative, freelance_list_conversations, and explains why it should be used instead because "unread counts" from it "change nothing."

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