Read a conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds two traits not in structured data: the required auth scope ('community token with the messages right') and the result ordering (newest first). It doesn't cover pagination behavior, but that's minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and ordering before the peer_id source and auth note. Each sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With auth requirements, ID sourcing, ordering, and pagination parameters all covered across description and schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that peer_id is the same user ID surfaced by vk_messages_get_conversations, telling the agent where to source the required 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?

States a specific verb (read), resource (messages of one conversation), scope (community inbox), and ordering (newest first). This clearly distinguishes it from vk_messages_get_conversations and vk_messages_send among siblings.

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?

Tells the agent where peer_id comes from (vk_messages_get_conversations shows it), which is a concrete routing hint to the prerequisite sibling. It does not state when-not to use it or mention alternatives like send/mark_as_read, so it stops short of a 5.

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