get_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful ordering trait ('oldest first'). However it doesn't reconcile that ordering with the limit parameter's 'Newest N messages' behavior, nor mention pagination limits, which leaves a real behavioral question unanswered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but arguably over-compressed for a tool with ordering subtleties worth one more clause.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing: how the 'oldest first' ordering interacts with limit/since and whether large histories are truncated — gaps an agent would want resolved before calling.

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 three parameters (limit, since, conversation) are already documented including formats and ranges. The description adds only the ordering semantics, which actually sits in mild tension with the limit field's 'newest N' wording rather than clarifying it.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Read messages') and scopes it to 'one Teams conversation,' which implicitly separates it from the cross-conversation sibling search_messages. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

'from one Teams conversation' hints that this is the single-conversation read path, implying search_messages is for cross-conversation lookup, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated outright. An agent must infer the routing decision from the sibling name alone.

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