search_media_references

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it's instant, read-only, no side effects, and specifies the return format (including example) and error modes. This covers all necessary behavioral traits for safe invocation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, prerequisites, returns, errors). It is comprehensive but slightly lengthy; however, every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4.

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 output schema exists and the description includes a return format example, error modes, and prerequisites, the description is fully complete. It provides all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly without missing information.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It repeats the prerequisite context for channel_id but does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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's function: 'Find messages that SHARED a file, image, PDF, or link in one channel.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying what it does (media attachment search) versus general knowledge search, and uses specific verbs and resources.

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?

Explicitly provides 'When to use' (locating shared files/images/links) and 'When NOT to use' (general fact/knowledge search, with named alternatives like search_channel_facts or ask_channel). Also mentions prerequisite: channel_id from list_channels.

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