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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only adds the membership scope. It does not reveal what the search matches, result ordering, pagination, default limits, or what response shape is returned, so the agent has limited insight into actual behavior.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple search tool, though the brevity sacrifices detail that completeness would require.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, and with zero parameter descriptions, the description leaves several operational gaps: search semantics, default result limit, channelId effect, and return format. The tool name and schema cover only the basic shape, not enough for an agent to call it correctly in varied contexts.

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%, so the description must compensate for the terse parameter names. It does not explain that q is the search query, that limit caps the number of results, or that channelId filters the search to a specific channel; the names provide only weak hints.

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 the specific verb 'Search' with resource 'messages' and adds a scope constraint ('in channels you belong to'). It clearly distinguishes a query-style operation from sibling verbs like read_messages, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose search_messages over read_messages, list_channels, or other siblings. The membership scope hints at context, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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