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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Search Slack messages' and omits any details about return format, authentication, rate limits, pagination, or scope (e.g., channels, DMs). This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and immediately states the tool's purpose, earning full marks for conciseness despite its brevity.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what results look like, whether filters are applied, and how to construct a query. The current description provides none of this, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema describes a single required parameter 'q' with no description, and the description does not mention or explain it. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but does not even hint that 'q' is likely a search query.

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 'Search Slack messages' specifies a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('Slack messages'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_slack_message, reply_slack, and get_slack. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 get_slack, get_slack_dms, or search_email. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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