Get B2match conversation

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

The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false without explaining why; the description supplies the reason — fetching messages causes B2match to mark the conversation read even though this client never sends MarkConversationAsSeen. It also discloses the gating and the error outcome, which is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, and each of the four sentences carries distinct information (side effect, gating, alternative, error). The aside about never sending MarkConversationAsSeen is implementation detail, but it is what justifies the non-read-only annotation, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

Covers side effects, gating, alternatives and error behavior, which is the hard part for a two-parameter tool. With no output schema, the message payload shape and any pagination or result-limit behavior are left implicit, a minor remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by clarifying that both the environment flag and acknowledge_marks_read must hold, and by noting that unknown ids (the conversation_id parameter) produce a not-found error. It does not add format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's 'Conversation UUID from list_conversations'.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Fetch conversation messages') and immediately separates it from list_conversations, which is called out as the preview-oriented sibling. An agent can route between the two without reading 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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('Use list_conversations for last-message previews'), states the enablement precondition (B2MATCH_ALLOW_SIDE_EFFECT_READS=1 plus acknowledge_marks_read), and reports the not-found behavior for unknown ids.

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