crm_get_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: pagination is bounded, and the returned content is untrusted data rather than authoritative company state — a real prompt-injection/trust warning for an agent. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what the actual bound is.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The trust caveat is appended efficiently, though "bounded" is asserted without being specified, which slightly undercuts the economy.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description should at least explain pagination behavior and the threadId format. It covers the trust model well but leaves the calling mechanics thin.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must carry meaning and largely doesn't: it never says what threadId looks like, what limit/offset default to, or what the "bounded" maximum is. "Bounded message pagination" hints that limit/offset exist but adds no usable detail.

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 ("Read") and resource ("one LinkedIn channel conversation"), with scope narrowed to a single thread rather than a list — implicitly distinguishing it from crm_list_threads. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus crm_list_threads, linkedin_get_recent_messages, or linkedin_get_inbox_page, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Only the generic implication that it fetches one conversation is conveyed.

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