get_conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool returns intermediate statuses and suggests polling intervals. However, it does not disclose auth requirements or rate limits, which would further enhance transparency.

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 very concise: one opening sentence plus a bullet list of three statuses. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the key action. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main use case, statuses, and follow-up actions. It could mention polling timeout or when to stop, but it is sufficiently complete for a polling tool with sibling 'wait_for_conversation' for automatic polling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'Conversation ID returned by...'). Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not add meaningful extra semantics.

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 purpose: 'Poll a conversation for new messages or a status change.' It specifies the verb 'poll' and the resource 'conversation', making the action unambiguous. The list of key statuses further distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'send_conversation_reply' and 'get_job_status'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (polling for new messages or status change) and includes specific statuses with recommended actions: 'poll again in ~15s', 'send_conversation_reply', and 'switch to get_job_status'. This gives clear context for alternative tools, exceeding basic usage guidance.

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