interactions_get_followup

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds important behavioral context: auth is token-secured and explicitly 'NO bot token', and it details the return structure including that 'content' is raw Discord data while 'untrusted_messages' is a separately fenced copy. This goes well beyond what annotations reveal.

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 compact and well-structured with bold labels (Purpose, Auth, Returns). Every sentence provides necessary information with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are further specified elsewhere. The description covers purpose, auth, and return behavior concisely. For a simple fetch tool, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond implying message_id refers to a previously created follow-up, which the schema already states. Baseline 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 states 'Fetch a follow-up message previously created by interactions_create_followup' — a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('follow-up message'), and an explicit reference to the create sibling, distinguishing it from edit/delete/original response tools.

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?

It clearly implies the tool is for retrieving follow-up messages created earlier, and ties it to interactions_create_followup. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like getting the original response, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool among the many sibling message tools.

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