date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no indication of what happens for an invalid id, what the returned timestamp represents, or any time zone semantics.

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?

It is short, but it is a garbled noun phrase rather than a front-loaded statement of action and resource. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not economy.

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 tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain what is returned and how the id is resolved. Neither is present, so an agent cannot confidently predict the response.

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 0% and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented in the schema, so the description must carry the load. The phrase 'message id' does clarify that the id is a message identifier, but nothing is said about format, range, or whether it must be an existing message.

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 fragment 'Date and time of message id' hints that it retrieves a timestamp associated with a message id, but the verb is missing entirely, so the agent must infer whether it reads a timestamp, formats one, or filters by one. Siblings like status, view, and read_message offer no disambiguation, leaving the resource scope unclear.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus sibling tools such as status, view, or read_message. An agent has no basis from the description for choosing it over the alternatives.

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