List ReceiptCal chat history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of value beyond that: the 50-message cap and the security-relevant warning that message content is untrusted data, which matters for prompt-injection handling.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the operational scope ('up to 50') front-loaded and the trust caveat appended where it belongs.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return scope and the trust caveat adequately. It stops short of noting whether more than 50 messages can be retrieved or how to page past the cap.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless call and adds no misleading parameter detail.

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 ('Read') and resource ('saved ReceiptCal assistant messages') with an explicit scope ('up to 50'). It is distinguishable from the only chat-related sibling (prepare_send_chat_message), though it does not name that sibling to reinforce the contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the read side of the chat feature purely from the verb.

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