search_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the search is limited to the local cache (results may be incomplete) and it never sends messages. It omits other relevant behavior such as pagination via limit, auth requirements, or result ordering.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scoping constraint front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, and the description leaves all three parameters unexplained, including how limit and chatId narrow the search. For a search tool with an undocumented input shape, this is insufficient beyond the useful local-cache caveat.

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% for three parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — query, limit, and chatId are never mentioned or explained. An agent gets no help mapping the parameters to search scoping or result size.

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") and resource ("message text") plus a qualifier ("locally cached") that sets it apart from read_messages or fetch_message_history. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is only implied by the cache scoping.

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?

"Locally cached" implicitly tells the agent this only covers already-synced data, which is useful context for choosing between this and fetch_message_history. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing.

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