Export messages by location ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: cursor-based pagination mechanics, the presence of messageType/source/subType fields in the response, the default channel behavior that includes activity messages, and required OAuth scope. This gives an agent a solid behavioral model before calling.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds pagination, response fields, and channel default in a logical order. It loses a point because 'Export messages by location ID' is immediately repeated in the next sentence, creating mild redundancy.

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 10-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: pagination via cursor, default channel behavior, key response fields, and required scope. The remaining gaps (date format, sorting defaults) are already covered by schema descriptions. It is slightly short of complete because it does not describe the overall response envelope.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all ten parameters. The description adds some value by explaining the channel default and pagination cursor pattern, but largely restates what the schema already conveys. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Export messages' for a specific location, and is further clarified by cursor-based pagination and the explicit GET endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like conversations_get_messages because it frames the operation as a location-scoped export rather than a general message retrieval.

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 clearly states this tool exports messages for a specific location, which orients the agent toward its intended scope. It also explains the channel parameter's default behavior, letting the agent know when to pass it. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it.

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