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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'Authenticated' provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or potential empty results.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, with no wasted text. However, it sacrifices useful detail for brevity, which is acceptable for a simple tool but could be enhanced with minimal additions.

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 lack of output schema and parameters with 0% coverage, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what a 'message attempt' is, the difference from 'delivery attempts', or the response format, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, yet the description offers no explanation of the parameters (appId, messageId, limit). The schema only provides type constraints, leaving the agent without semantic understanding of what these parameters represent.

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 'list message attempts' is a clear verb+resource pair. It accurately conveys the tool's function but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_delivery_attempts' or 'list_messages', which could lead to confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_delivery_attempts' or 'list_messages'. The description only mentions it is an 'Authenticated tool', which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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