search_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether results are ranked, whether the search is full-text vs. prefix, whether it covers private chats, or whether it is read-only (implied but unstated). The only behavioral hint is that the search spans both chats and channels.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is not padded; it is simply thin, which is penalized under other dimensions rather than here.

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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, one sentence is not enough to invoke it correctly. The agent cannot tell what form results take, how paging works, or how this differs from list_messages.

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% and the description adds nothing about either parameter. It does not explain the required `query` (matching semantics, operators) or the optional `limit` (default value, max 100), so the agent learns nothing beyond the raw schema types.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Search messages") plus a scope ("across chats and channels"), which is more than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_messages, so an agent must guess which one to use for retrieving messages in a known chat.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_messages or list_channels/list_chats, and no prerequisites or query-syntax guidance. The phrase "across chats and channels" weakly implies a cross-conversation use case, but the agent is left to infer it.

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