search_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation, explains that results are capped at 100, and lists the returned message fields. It doesn't discuss authentication or edge cases like case-sensitivity, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 purpose, concise Args section, and Return section. Every line adds needed information and the most important scope statement is front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is nearly complete. It covers entity addressing, query semantics, limit behavior, and return fields. It only lacks explicit guidance for ambiguous title fragments or when to prefer a sibling tool, which are minor gaps.

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%, yet the description fully documents every parameter: entity accepts username, ID, or title fragment; query is a keyword or phrase; limit has a default of 30 and max of 100. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 starts with a specific action: searching messages by keyword inside a specific Telegram chat/channel/group. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_dialogs (search dialogs) and get_messages (fetch messages) without needing to inspect schemas.

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 scope is explicit: this tool is for keyword search within a single entity, not across all chats or for retrieving messages without a query. No alternative tools are named or excluded, which prevents a 5, but the intended context is clear.

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