Read message history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real value beyond them: it flags that message content is untrusted third-party text with a never-follow-instructions rule, and it states the pagination model (limit/offset). The prompt-injection warning is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then scoping, then routing, then the safety caveat and pagination. No sentence is redundant and nothing repeats the schema verbatim.

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, the description correctly states what is returned and how to page through it, and it covers the safety posture. It does not state result ordering (newest first vs oldest) or the default page size, which matter for a history tool, so it falls just short of complete.

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 80% and the schema already documents limit, chat_id, message_id, and instance_id in more detail than the description. The description adds only the pagination hint for limit/offset and the scoping intent, which is marginal; offset remains undocumented anywhere. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns messages of the instance') plus the two scoping filters (chat_id, message_id), which cleanly separates it from find_chats and from the send/react/edit/delete siblings. An agent can pick this over find_chats without opening either schema.

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?

'Use to read a conversation or to get message ids for react/edit/delete' gives both the read path and a concrete downstream workflow, implicitly routing to react_to_message/edit_message/delete_message. No explicit when-not or exclusion (e.g. vs find_chats) is stated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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