get_message_check_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the discovery behavior of the omitted-ID case, but says nothing about what the private configuration contains or any permission requirements for reading it.

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?

A single tight sentence with the main action front-loaded and the discovery mode appended after the semicolon. No wasted words, though the phrasing is compressed to the point of slight ambiguity.

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 not be described, and the tool has one optional parameter whose two modes are both addressed. Only the meaning of 'check configuration' itself is left unexplained, a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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 carry the semantics of configuration_id. It does explain that omitting it enumerates choices, which adds real meaning beyond the schema's default=null, but it never says what a valid ID looks like or what happens with an invalid one.

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 ('Read') and resource ('private check configuration'), but the resource remains ambiguous — nothing explains what a 'check configuration' is or how it relates to the tool name 'message check status'. No sibling overlaps, so differentiation is not the issue, but the purpose stays vague.

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 clause 'omit the ID to discover choices' is an explicit usage pattern for the no-argument case, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to supply an ID versus discover, nor any mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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