get_edited_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and completeness. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the database columns queried (date_retracted, date_edited) and the return format (message list with timestamps and per-contact stats), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does and what it queries, the second describes the return format. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 query tool with good annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool searches for and what it returns, though there's no output schema. The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, but overall it's reasonably complete for this complexity level.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Find edited and unsent messages') and resources ('messages'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it queries date_retracted and date_edited columns. This is more specific than generic message search tools like search_messages.

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 usage context by mentioning what it queries (date_retracted/date_edited columns) and what it returns, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like search_messages or check_new_messages. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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