skool_get_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses the read-only nature and the return shape (sender, content, timestamp). It does not mention rate limits, ordering, or the effect on read state, but 'read-only' reasonably implies no side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a direct prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the key details: how to get the required parameter and what the return contains. Missing are specifics on limit behavior, ordering, and pagination, but these are not critical for a simple read operation with no output schema.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains how to obtain channel_id (via list_conversations) but does not describe the limit parameter at all. The meaning of 'limit' must be inferred from context or its default value.

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 a specific action ('Read the messages') on a specific resource ('one DM conversation'), and explicitly marks it as read-only. It also names the sibling tool to obtain the required channel_id, distinguishing it from list_conversations.

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 provides a concrete usage step ('Get the channel_id from skool_list_conversations') and implies a context (reading messages, not sending or marking read). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the prerequisite and read-only nature give adequate guidance.

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