Search messages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it covers every channel the bot can read, searches inside embeds and polls, uses whole-word full-text matching, and supports filtering by author, content type, and pinned state. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but with the annotation covering safety, the added context is sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It covers scope, matching behavior, and available filters/sorting without fluff. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is quite thorough: it covers scope, matching semantics, filters, and ordering. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format or pagination details (offset/limit), relying on the schema for those. Since the output schema is absent, a brief note on what is returned (e.g., matching messages) would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that query matching is whole-word not substring, that 'has' includes image/link/file examples, that sort order is 'newest first or by relevance', and that channel can be used to limit scope. These enrich the parameter understanding beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 clearly states the tool searches the server's message history via Discord's native search index, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_messages and search_members by emphasizing full-text search across history with filters. The scope (all readable channels or one named channel) is explicit.

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 gives clear context on when to use: for searching message history with keyword matching, filters, and sorting. It explains the whole-word matching behavior, which guides the agent to use word searches rather than fragments. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the usage context is strong enough to avoid confusion with read_messages.

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