search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape: hits marked with '>', each with sender, time, surrounding context, and tg:// citations. It does not mention pagination or how 'limit'/'budget' truncation behaves, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single information-dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is somewhat long for one sentence, but every clause (scope, hit marker, sender/time/context, citations, single call) earns its place.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering only safety, the description usefully describes what comes back (hits, sender, time, context, citations). It stops short of covering pagination, no-result behavior, or budget interaction, which leaves minor gaps for a search tool.

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 78%, so most of the 9 parameters are already documented in the schema (query syntax, from, chats, limit, since, context, budget). The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond noting that context around hits is returned. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Find messages') and scopes it to the owner's allowed Telegram chats, so the agent knows exactly what surface is being searched. It does not, however, explain how it differs from close siblings like 'read' or 'chats', which target the same corpus, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Find messages' with a query parameter makes the search intent obvious, and 'in one call' hints at an efficient multi-chat lookup. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus 'read'/'chats', no stated prerequisites (e.g. chat authorization needed), and no exclusions.

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