Verificar envio

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds the 'from_me=1' filter as useful context. However, it does not disclose behavior with an empty text_substring parameter or clarify the return value, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting key parameter semantics, so it is well-structured but not maximally informative.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify the role of text_substring and what 'verified' means (e.g., return type or behavior). It only describes the general action, which is insufficient for full contextual completeness.

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 description makes no mention of the 'text_substring' parameter, and the schema has 0% description coverage. This leaves the agent with no explanation of the argument's purpose or how it influences the query, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 using the specific verb 'Verifica' (checks), identifies the resource (database), and includes the condition 'from_me=1'. This distinguishes it from siblings like send_message or search_messages, which focus on sending or general search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions. The description only states what the tool does without contextualizing when it should be preferred over confirm_send or get_messages.

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