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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a two-phase search (contacts/tags first, then message text and media captions), merge plus dedup by conversation, and a per-match reason field. It stops short of noting cost, latency, or result ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the mechanism and the result-shape note. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and the annotations cover safety. It is nearly complete for a 3-parameter read tool; the remaining gap is the undocumented `limit` behavior and any note on case sensitivity or match ranking, which matters for interpreting merged results.

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 67% (query and channel_id documented, limit not). The description meaningfully enriches `query` by spelling out what text sources are matched, which goes beyond 'Text to search for.' However, `limit` is documented neither in the schema nor the description, and the scoping role of channel_id is only implied by 'Searches contact profiles...' within an inbox.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Find conversations' — and enumerates the axes searched (contact name, phone number, tag name, message content). That makes it clearly distinct from the sibling getchat_list_conversations, but it never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to reach for when you have free-text or a contact identifier rather than a conversation id. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. getchat_list_conversations / getchat_get_conversation guidance and no stated exclusions or preconditions.

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