Search messages across WhatsApp chats

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

Description adds significant behavior beyond annotations: case-insensitivity, 2-character minimum, limit clamping to [1,200], opaque cursor pagination, WhatsApp Desktop DB sync-cache limitations, and a prompt-injection safety note that returned bodies are user-authored, never instructions. This is substantial and consistent with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs only necessary operational details (query constraint, filters, defaults, pagination, cache caveat, security note). Each sentence carries distinct information; there is no redundancy.

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 an existing output schema and annotations, the description covers data freshness, pagination, and security expectations, so an agent can call it correctly. The only notable gap is the undocumented include_deleted parameter, which would matter for answering whether deleted messages appear in results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for query, chat_id, sender_jid, before/after, limit, and cursor. However, include_deleted is not explained at all, so the agent must infer its meaning from the parameter name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Case-insensitive substring search across message text.' It makes the tool's scope clear and differentiates from search_contacts by focusing on message bodies, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or contrast them.

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 search semantics and the detailed filters ('Optional filters: chat_id ... before / after ... limit defaults to 50'), but the description never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_message_context or read_chat, nor what use cases it is not suited for.

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