semantic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses meaning-based matching, coverage of voice/image/document text, and a scoping option. It doesn't mention performance, read-only nature, or pagination, but for a search tool the main behavior is well conveyed.

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 tight sentences; the semantic-scope statement is front-loaded and the alternative tool reference is placed at the end without waste.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format is covered. Description provides the essential selection semantics and sibling routing, but omits date-filter behavior and per-chat selection details that the schema alone does not explain.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'query' and implies chat scope ('or one'), but it never names or clarifies limit, from_date, or to_date. Partial compensation, not complete.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('all chats (or one)'), and semantic behavior (finds messages/voice/doc/image text about the query even when words differ). This clearly distinguishes it from search_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?

Explicitly directs agent to search_messages when exact words/names are needed, which is the key selection criterion. Does not mention date/chat scope conditions, but the core alternative is covered.

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