Get messages

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and open-world, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: default time window, newest-first ordering, nested replies, per-message fields, recipient types, and accent-insensitive search. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

Three dense sentences front-load the core resource and default behavior, then add ordering, nesting, fields, and search semantics. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 description is thorough for a read-only list tool, especially with an output schema present. It covers defaults, ordering, nesting, fields, and search behavior. The only notable gaps are the undocumented `limit` and `student` parameters, which keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `since` and `search` with meaningful detail, but it does not describe `limit` or `student`. The two documented parameters are handled well, but half the parameters remain unexplained.

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 identifies the resource ('messages from teachers and the school (and chats)') and the operation (retrieval with filtering and reply nesting). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_notifications, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling.

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 by describing its content and filters, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over get_notifications or send_message, nor does it give exclusions. Usage context is clear but left to inference.

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