Check whether a reply was accepted

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context that accepted means queued for sending rather than delivered, and not_found means no accepted send exists. It also notes scopes and that the tool itself does not require idempotency, which is useful behavioral 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?

The operational purpose and status semantics are front-loaded, followed by compact scope and workspace notes. Every sentence adds practical context without unnecessary repetition.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values and covers the important status meanings, scopes, and workspace override. The main remaining gap is explicitly defining the id parameter in relation to the conversation path.

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 clarifies the idempotency key lookup and the workspace override, but it does not explicitly explain the required id path parameter as the conversation/reply identifier. With schema description coverage at 50%, it partially compensates but leaves the main id parameter underspecified.

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 operation: looking up a manual reply by idempotency key to learn whether the API accepted it for sending before resending. It clearly distinguishes this status check from the act of sending again and defines the key status semantics.

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?

Explains when to use it: before sending a reply again, to verify whether the prior send was accepted. It also defines accepted versus not_found, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as luca_conversations_send or retry tools.

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