search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include citations (which is useful), but doesn't state whether this is read-only, what indexing scope means, rate limits, or what happens when no results match. The phrase 'indexed messages' is vague about coverage.

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 a single short sentence with zero waste, which earns some credit, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a useful way. It front-loads the action and returns quickly but provides little information per word.

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 6-parameter tool with no schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and several closely-related sibling tools, the description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain any parameter semantics, return format, or use-case boundaries, making it hard for an agent to invoke or select correctly.

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 for 6 undocumented parameters. It adds essentially nothing beyond the schema's bare parameter names. It doesn't explain the format of 'since'/'until' date strings, what 'media_type' values are valid, what 'query' syntax is supported, or how 'limit' behaves.

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 'Search indexed messages and transcripts with citations' has a clear verb (search) and resource (messages/transcripts), but is generic and does not differentiate from siblings like get_message_context or retrieve_evidence, which likely overlap in functionality. It's marginally descriptive beyond the tool name, which is redundant.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use search_messages versus sibling tools like retrieve_evidence, get_message_context, or query_knowledge_catalog. The description 'Search indexed messages and transcripts with citations' implies full-text search use but provides no exclusions or alternatives.

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