ghl_conversation_get_message

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which already convey the tool's safe, read-only nature. The description adds valuable context about the inferred `id` parameter due to a spec gap, the endpoint method (GET), and required OAuth scopes. No contradictions with annotations.

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 somewhat verbose, including a technical note about the spec gap and source details. The purpose statement is repeated twice. While not excessively long, it could be more streamlined by removing the repetition and focusing on essential information.

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 has a single parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the endpoint, auth requirements, and the spec issue. However, it does not describe the response shape or return value, which would be helpful since there is no output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single `id` parameter, describing it as a required path parameter. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining that the official spec omitted the `id` declaration and that it is inferred from the URL template, which clarifies the parameter's origin and necessity.

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 explicitly states 'Get message by message id', clearly indicating the verb (get) and resource (message by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_conversation_get_messages (which retrieves multiple messages) and ghl_conversation_get (which gets a conversation rather than a message).

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 mentions OAuth scopes and the requirement for the `id` parameter, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing messages vs. getting a single message). It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements.

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