list_text_messages

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

No annotations exist to cover safety traits, and the description only says 'List' and the HTTP method. It lacks behavioral detail such as whether all messages are returned, pagination behavior, or any limits.

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 front-loads the purpose immediately and adds the GET endpoint as a useful technical signal. Every word 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?

The description is enough to select the tool and understand its core purpose, but with no output schema and no behavioral annotations, the description could have added pagination or response expectations. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, covering personId, toNumber, fromNumber, and extraQuery. The description's 'for a person or phone number' mirrors the schema without adding new semantic meaning.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('List text messages'), specifies scope ('for a person or phone number'), and includes the HTTP endpoint, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_text_message.

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 a retrieval/browse use case but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_text_message. There is no explicit guidance on ordering, pagination, or exclusion conditions.

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