get_transactional_results_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does assert 'Read-only', which is a genuine (if unverifiable) safety claim, but says nothing about auth requirements, result cardinality, paging, error behavior when an ID does not exist, or what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences where two are near-duplicates: 'Calls GetSingleMessagesResultsByIds on the Meser10 platform' and 'SOAP operation: GetSingleMessagesResultsByIds' convey the same fact. The only non-redundant content is the two-word 'Read-only' note, so the definition is both repetitive and under-specified.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is the sole source of information and it delivers almost none. An agent cannot determine what is returned, how IDs map to results, or why it would choose this over the by-date sibling.

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 compensate for the single iaMessageIDs array parameter. It never explains the parameter's format, whether the array accepts multiple IDs per call, whether an empty/missing value is legal (0 required params), or what an ID refers to — only the plural '-ByIds' in the operation name hints at multiplicity.

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 restates the underlying SOAP operation name twice ('Calls GetSingleMessagesResultsByIds... SOAP operation: GetSingleMessagesResultsByIds') without ever saying what a transactional result is or what entity the IDs belong to. It is close to tautology: an agent learns nothing beyond the tool name, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling get_transactional_results_by_date.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling get_transactional_results_by_date that shares the same resource. The 'Read-only' note describes a property of the call, not a condition for selecting this tool over another.

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