Get replies

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond them: polling happens once per URL, older text may appear when no timestamps exist, and inbox posts are bridge events.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences add caveats without excessive length. It is appropriately sized, with little wasted text.

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?

The description covers behavior and freshness caveats, and annotations plus schema cover safety and parameters. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the shape or fields of returned replies, leaving return-value context somewhat incomplete.

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 bot, limit, since, and threadId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Read replies already received' and 'poll each configured reply URL once.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wait_for_reply.

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?

It gives implied usage context by saying replies are 'already received' and URLs are polled once, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus wait_for_reply or other siblings. The agent must infer the boundary.

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