search_messages

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no result ordering, no pagination behavior, no note on whether search is case-insensitive or spans the full chat history.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scoping constraint come first. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 3-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but does not clarify retrieval scope versus sibling list tools. An agent could call it correctly, but with little confidence about when it beats the alternatives.

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 all three parameters (chat_id, query, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'keyword' for query and adds no syntax, matching, or formatting detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb (search), resource (messages), scope (a Telegram chat) and mechanism (by keyword), which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_messages and get_messages_by_date. It does not name an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of the top mark.

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 on when to choose keyword search over get_messages, get_messages_by_date, or get_pinned_messages, all of which occupy adjacent retrieval roles. The agent must infer the selection rule from names alone.

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