greeting_messages

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real signal — that the payload is time-of-day partitioned (morning/afternoon/evening) and cooperative-scoped — but it never states that the operation is read-only or whether results depend on which cooperative is currently active.

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 well-formed sentence with the scoping condition and the variant structure front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and a zero-parameter getter needs little more than resource identification. The only meaningful omission is the implicit dependency on an active cooperative, which the description gestures at ('your cooperative') without explaining.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical about morning/afternoon/evening is the closest thing to parameter meaning, hinting at how the returned data is segmented.

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 names the exact resource — the app's greeting texts — and scopes it to 'your cooperative' with a parenthetical explaining the morning/afternoon/evening variants. It is not a verb-first statement, but for a zero-parameter retrieval tool the resource identification is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like inbox or content_page.

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?

There is no statement of when an agent should call this versus alternatives (e.g., content_page, home_layout, inbox), nor any precondition such as needing an active cooperative selected first. Usage is only inferable from the noun phrase itself.

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