Messages Search Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety proile. The description adds no additional behavioral context — no mention of return values, searche scope, date-range semantics, or pagination. It does not contradict the annotations but contributes nothing beyond them.

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 single sentence is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every word is boilerplate that earns no value, and no functional content is front-loaded or otherwise present.

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 7-parameter searche tool with 0% schema coverage, this description is wholly inadequate. Even with an output schema present, the input semantics are completely unexplained, and an agent cannot reliably construct a correct searche call.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and fails entirely. It explains neither what 'query' matche against, nor the expected format for start_iso/end_iso, nor how sender and chat_id filters interact. An agent is left guessing about every parameter.

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 is a tautology: it restates the tool name in quotes and adds only boilerplate about being 'delegated' through Apple-Tools-MCP. It never states that this tool searche messages, what is searche for, or how it differs from nearly idential siblings like mail_searche_messages.

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 zer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With mail_searche_messages, messages_list_conversation, and messages_get_message among the siblings, an agent gets no help choosing between them. No context, no exclusions, no alternatives are mentioned.

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