get_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Business plan requirement, which is useful context about access control. However, it doesn't describe other critical behaviors like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, detailing functionality, and noting a requirement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., 'Supports listing conversations or retrieving messages by ID').

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, pagination for large result sets, and how parameters interact. While it covers basic purpose and a requirement, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use without trial and error.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between parameters like conversationId and conversationsOnly). Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get messages and conversations from a social platform.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('messages and conversations'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_comments or get_post. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from send_message or other message-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides some usage context by mentioning 'Supports listing all conversations or getting a specific conversation's messages' and 'Requires Business plan,' which implies when to use it (for message retrieval) and a prerequisite. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_comments or send_message, and doesn't specify 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.