readBusinessMessage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the side effect (marks as read), a prerequisite (can_read_messages), and the success return value (True). It does not detail failure modes or idempotency, but the disclosed behavior is concrete and useful.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the permission prerequisite and return behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of 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?

For a simple side-effect tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required right, and success return. It could add failure semantics or a note on when to call it relative to processing updates, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Marks ... as read') on a precise resource ('incoming message ... on behalf of a business account'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like deleteBusinessMessages or getBusinessConnection. It adds the required bot right, so the tool's role is unambiguous.

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 communicates clear context: this is for incoming business-account messages and requires the can_read_messages bot right. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the use case is sufficiently clear.

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