Read a conversation

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: lid_lookup merging behavior, the merge and source_chat indicators, history_sync provenance, pagination via next_before, and that every page read is recorded in the channel's API access records.

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 purpose and scoping constraint are front-loaded in the first clause. The remaining sentences are dense but each carries distinct operational information, though the middle section is information-rich enough to be slightly heavy for a single paragraph.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value context well by naming the fields an agent will see (merge, source_chat, sender_jid, sender_lid, next_before) and explaining provenance limitations. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the pagination flow (next_before -> before), restating the default limit of 50, and clarifying that chat can denote either a person or a group.

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 verb and resource (read one conversation from this channel's message log) and immediately scopes it to a person or a group. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_chats, get_contact, or get_group, which list rather than read message history.

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?

Usage is implied: read a conversation once you know the chat, and paginate by passing next_before as before. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions/prerequisites, so guidance is only inferable rather than explicit.

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