Get custom channel message details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds behavioral context by listing exactly what detail categories are returned (message content, sender info, timestamps), which is useful since no output schema is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and key returned details without any wasted words or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple read-only tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and expected return fields. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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%; both channel_id and message_id are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action (Get), the resource (details of a specific message sent through a custom channel), and the scope (message content, sender information, timestamps), distinguishing it from general message history tools like GetMessageHistoryForThread or RetrieveFullMessageContent.

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 implies use when retrieving details of a specific custom-channel message but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as RetrieveFullMessageContent or RetrieveThreadMessage, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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