Test message against filters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with a non-mutating check. It adds one genuinely useful disclosure – that StreamElements documents the body only as { origin, data } – but says nothing about what the result looks like (boolean caught/not-caught, matched rule, etc.), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences: the purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence is a genuinely informative caveat about upstream documentation rather than filler. No wasted wording.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic with 100% schema coverage and safety covered by annotations, the definition is adequate. The gap is the return value – with no output schema, the agent cannot tell whether it receives a boolean, a matched-filter list, or a full filter evaluation, and there is no guidance on the channel default behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description honestly flags that origin and data are opaque upstream, but adds no syntax, shape, or example beyond what the schema already says, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 (test/check) and resource (a message against the channel's spam filters), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling mutators like filters_update or filters_banphrases_create. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'check whether a message would be caught' – a dry-run/diagnostic read. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no pointer to related tools such as filters_banphrase_search or filters_list for related inspection.

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