Full discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint as true/false, so the tool is safe. The description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the data is read 'live from its source transcript' and that the tool returns a notice when unavailable. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is concise with three well-structured sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides usage constraints, and finally specifies arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and return behavior sufficiently. The only gap is that the format of 'turns' is not elaborated, but it's acceptable for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Thread id'. The description adds meaning by explaining that the return is 'the full discussion as turns, or why it's unavailable', providing clarity on what to expect from the output, which the schema does not cover.

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 uses specific verbs ('Reconstruct and return') and clearly identifies the resource ('FULL original conversation for a memory'). It distinguishes itself from the summary by stating the summary is the distilled gist while this provides complete discussion, and it mentions the source limitation, which aids differentiation from sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you need the detail') and when not to use it ('Only available for transcript-backed sources...'). It explains the limitation for non-transcript sources. However, it does not mention an alternative tool for those cases, so it lacks full guidance.

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