Get B2match conversation

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

The description discloses genuinely valuable behavior beyond the annotations: the server-side read-marking side effect, the feature-flag gating, the acknowledge_marks_read requirement, and not-found behavior for unknown ids. However, this directly conflicts with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, so the agent receives contradictory safety signals about whether the call mutates state.

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 core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries information (side effect, gating, alternative, error behavior). It is dense — four ideas packed into one paragraph — but no sentence is filler.

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 tool with a hidden side effect, the description covers the essential call-time concerns: gating, required acknowledgement, side effect, alternative tool, and error behavior. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Only the annotation conflict keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining acknowledge_marks_read's gating role ('Disabled unless ... acknowledge_marks_read is true') and conversation_id's failure mode ('Unknown ids return a not-found error'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema for both parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fetch conversation messages') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling by contrasting full messages against list_conversations' last-message previews. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use list_conversations for last-message previews,' and states the enabling condition (B2MATCH_ALLOW_SIDE_EFFECT_READS=1 and acknowledge_marks_read=true). It implies rather than spells out 'use this when you need full message bodies,' so it falls just short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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