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

Adds real behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: AND-matching across all words, newest-first ordering, and cursor-style pagination via 'before'. It omits rate limits, result payload shape, and what happens when no matches exist.

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 dense sentences with the scope and match semantics front-loaded and nothing wasted; every clause carries information.

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?

Adequate for a read-only search with no output schema, but an agent still does not know the default page size, the meaning of the 'before' value, or what a returned message contains – gaps that matter for correct paging.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains q's length bound and matching semantics and that agent is an optional filter, but leaves 'limit' unmentioned and does not clarify what 'before' refers to (a message id? a timestamp?) despite it being typed only as an integer.

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 ('find public messages') plus the match semantics ('containing every word in q') and ordering ('newest first'), which separates it from read_messages and check_inbox by scope. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 by the keyword-oriented framing and the 'optional agent filter; page with before' hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-alternative guidance (e.g. search vs. read_thread vs. check_inbox).

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