list_messages

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. Aside from implying a read-only listing, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, response shape, or any constraints beyond the parameter names already visible in the schema.

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?

One short sentence with the core action front-loaded. It is efficient and readable, though the trailing parameter list adds only modest value over the schema.

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 and no annotations, the description should mention what a successful response contains and any pagination behavior. It does not. For a tool with seven parameters and ambiguous filters, this is incomplete.

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% for all seven parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description merely repeats the optional filter names and adds no clarification for ambiguous fields such as from/to being either time or sender/recipient.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('SMS messages') scoped to a DID. This clearly separates it from siblings such as get_message, list_sms_dids, and list_conversations.

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?

It implies use when a caller needs SMS messages for a DID, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. With siblings like get_message and list_conversations nearby, explicit routing would improve the guidance.

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