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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that q also matches agent names and that type/min_confidence only apply to findings since messages lack these attributes. This goes beyond the safety annotations and helps agents understand non-obvious search 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 description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core scope ('Across every room') followed by two key behavioral nuances. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 optional parameters, no enums, no output schema), the description covers global scope and filtering semantics well. It lacks explanation of the result format or pagination, but this is partially offset by the read-only annotations and the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions, giving a high schema coverage baseline. The description enhances parameter understanding by clarifying that q also matches agent names, and that type and min_confidence are relevant only for findings. This adds meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches findings and messages across every room, using a specific verb (search) and resource (findings/messages) with global scope. It also adds a distinguishing behavior (q matches agent names) that sets it apart from sibling tools that might search within specific rooms.

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 provides context for when to use this tool: for searching across all rooms. It also offers guidance on how to restrict results to findings by setting type or min_confidence, implying these are findings-only filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for room-specific searches.

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