get_chat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context the annotations cannot carry — that all names and text in the response are third-party content and must not be treated as instructions. It omits what happens on an invalid or unknown id.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the return shape and the provenance front-loaded before the safety caveat. Every clause 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 no explanation, and the injection warning covers the main non-structural risk. The only gap is error behavior for a bad id, which is minor for a single-parameter read.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('a chat id as list_chats returns it'). The description restates the same provenance without adding format, length, or failure-mode detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one chat') and anchors the input to a sibling ('the id list_chats gave it'), which implicitly separates it from get_messages/get_changes. It stops short of explicitly contrasting what this returns versus those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 prerequisite is implied rather than stated: the id must come from list_chats, so an agent must first call that sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as search_messages.

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