search_dialogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior details: query is a partial name match, limit caps results, and the result is a list of matching dialogs with specific fields. However, it does not disclose case sensitivity, empty-result behavior, ordering, or any read-only guarantee. This is adequate but not thorough for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary is front-loaded, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content. The structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly extract the tool's behavior.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and the shape of results. It is complete enough to call correctly. Minor gaps include the absence of explicit routing between dialog search and message search, and edge-case behavior, but these do not prevent effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: query is defined as 'Part of the name to search for,' and limit is defined as 'Max results (default 10).' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, including the partial-match behavior and the cap semantics. It does not mention whether username is also matched, but the key parameters are clearly explained.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a concrete resource ('chats, channels, or groups') with a clear scope ('by name'). This differentiates it from sibling tools such as search_messages, which targets message content, and get_messages, which retrieves messages. The output return list of dialogs with id, name, username, type further reinforces the purpose.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to find chats, channels, or groups by name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, such as 'use search_messages to search within messages,' nor does it state when this tool should not be used. Usage context is clear but the guidance on choosing between siblings is left implicit.

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