search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitivity, the configurable time window, output formatting (human-friendly names), and a critical usage warning about raw IDs. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation.

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 three sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds a key parameter detail, and the third provides output format and a critical usage rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, time window, and output format. However, it does not explain the remaining parameters (limit, excludeGroups), the exact return structure, or behavior when no results are found.

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 explain parameters. It only explains the 'hours' parameter with its default and meaning. 'query', 'limit', and 'excludeGroups' are not mentioned, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 performs a case-insensitive substring search across cached messages. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_messages, which retrieves without search.

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 implies usage for searching messages with constraints (time window, human-friendly output) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The imperative note about never showing raw IDs gives some guidance.

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