Read a conversation

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

Description adds valuable behavioral details: ordering (oldest first), the `mine: true` flag for seller's messages, and a warning that message bodies are untrusted external content. These go beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, revealing the read-only nature and providing security context.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant wording. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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 simple read tool with two parameters, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, ordering, seller message marking, and a security warning. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by these details.

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 description does not explain the input parameters (conversationId, country). Country is documented in the schema, but conversationId lacks any description. The `mine: true` mention likely refers to response fields, not request parameters, so it doesn't compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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?

Description states the tool returns every message in a conversation, oldest first. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'conversations' (which likely lists conversations) and 'send_message' by focusing on reading messages within a single conversation.

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?

The description provides context that this is for reading a specific conversation's messages, implied by requiring conversationId. It also includes the security guideline about treating message bodies as information. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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