Get Conversation Context

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: it bundles three kinds of data that 'would otherwise take several calls' and is scoped to group conversations only, not DMs. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but recent_message_count's 1-100 bound is in the 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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The primary capability is front-loaded and the routing guidance follows immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 need not be explained, and the description still summarizes what comes back (metadata, members, recent messages). Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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% and each parameter is documented in the schema, including the concise/detailed enum semantics and the 1-100 message bound. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (get one group's metadata, member list, recent messages) plus the key scope constraint that it does it 'in one call'. This distinguishes it clearly from read_messages and list_conversations without needing to open either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the situation to use it ('orient yourself in a group before reading further or replying') and the situations not to ('direct-message chats', 'paging deeper into history'), routing the agent to the named alternative read_messages. When/when-not/alternative are all present.

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