Read a LINE conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by specifying 'both sides' and 'ordered oldest to newest', which are not present in annotations or schema. No contradictions exist.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, avoids redundancy, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given that the output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema fully describes parameters, the description provides complete context for a simple read operation. It covers purpose and adds the crucial ordering detail, making it sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 all parameters (chat_id, after, limit, before) are already documented. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond reinforcing that chat_id is the identifier; it does not explain parameter syntax or usage details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('both sides of one LINE conversation by chat ID') with an additional detail about ordering ('ordered oldest to newest'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_chats, search_messages, and get_recent_activity.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a full conversation given a chat ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Context from sibling names helps fill this gap, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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