Get Recording by Message ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the auth token type ('Token: location') and required scope ('conversations/message.readonly'), as well as the endpoint format. It does not describe the response shape, but for a read-only GET this is a minor gap.

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 repeats the title almost verbatim before restating the same idea, creating redundancy. The endpoint and auth details are valuable, but the first sentence could be removed or merged. It is compact but not tightly edited.

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 simple two-string-param GET with read-only and idempotent annotations, the description covers the endpoint, token, and scopes. It does not specify the return format, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward resource make this acceptable. The description could have noted that this is not the transcription endpoint, but that is reasonably inferable from the name.

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 both messageId and locationId are already documented. The description only adds 'passing the message id' and shows locationId in the endpoint path, providing no additional semantic meaning. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Get the recording for a message by passing the message id', and includes the exact endpoint path. This distinguishes it from siblings like conversations_get_message_transcription by the object type 'recording', even though it does not explicitly contrast with them. The opening duplicates the title but does not undermine purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as conversations_get_message_transcription or conversations_download_message_transcription. It mentions required token and scopes, but gives no criteria, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools. The only implied usage cue is the resource name 'recording'.

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