interactions_get_original_response

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies token-secured auth with NO bot token, and details the return format including the raw content vs separately fenced `untrusted_messages`. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 remarkably concise and well-structured with bolded labels (Purpose, Auth, Returns). Every section delivers necessary information without fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read operation, the description is quite complete: it explains the purpose, auth requirements, and return format. It could mention error scenarios or prerequisites (like needing to have created a response first), but these are minor gaps given the strong schema and annotations.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (application ID and interaction token as a scoped credential). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 fetches the original interaction response message created by `interactions_create_response`. This specific verb+resource combination with the reference to the creating function distinguishes it from follow-up retrieval 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to retrieve the original response), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for follow-ups) or name alternatives like `interactions_get_followup`. Usage context is clear but exclusionary guidance is missing.

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