Find who is waiting on the user

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: abandonment semantics for max_age_hours, group-chat inclusion logic, business-account auto-reply weighting, and output ordering. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core definition, then layers exclusions, group logic, output shape, and routing. It is dense but a few parenthetical example tokens and the caveat sentences make it longer than strictly necessary; still, nearly every sentence carries selection-relevant 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?

No output schema exists, and the description still tells the agent what each entry contains (the quoted ask, count of messages since the user's last reply, waiting duration) plus ordering (people first, then oldest wait). Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description still adds interpretive value: max_age_hours is framed as 'abandoned, not waiting,' and min_age_hours is illustrated with 48 hours for forgotten asks, giving an agent a reason to choose thresholds rather than just valid ranges.

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 resource ('chats where the last word is theirs and it asks for something') with the exact inclusion heuristic, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_recent_messages. An agent can tell what this returns and why it exists without opening the 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?

Explicit routing: 'use get_recent_messages for what happened, and this for who is still waiting.' It also gives exclusion conditions (ended in 'ok, thanks', older than max_age_hours, group chats without @-mention or reply) and caveats for business accounts, so the agent knows when not to expect a row.

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