Get conversation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: the ordering guarantee, the limit-capping behavior, and notably that reading does not mark the conversation read. That last point is a genuine side-effect disclosure not derivable from annotations.

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 opening sentence and the following sentence convey the same fact ('latest messages ... oldest first') almost verbatim, which is redundant. The ordering does confirm the response-value note, but the duplication costs space without adding information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the 'from' field semantics and where member names come from, plus the non-marking-read behavior. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it does not describe pagination or what happens when fewer than limit messages exist.

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%, with limit's 1-100 range and default already documented. The description adds marginal clarification ('up to limit latest messages') but no syntax or edge-case handling beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the latest messages of one Skool Chat conversation, ordered oldest first. It is distinguishable from list_conversations, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting the two. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Implies when to use by pointing at list_conversations and send_message as the source of conversation_id, but never states when this tool is preferred over alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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