search_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one valuable behavioral detail: a 202 indexing response is returned as data and should be retried later. This is useful beyond the annotations, though the description does not address pagination behavior or output shape. With annotations in place, this is a solid but not exceptional disclosure.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the edge-case retry note is placed after, which is the right ordering. Every sentence 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?

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the result looks like, what content means as a search query, that guild_id is required, or how limit/offset pagination behaves. The indexing note is helpful, but an agent would still lack essential invocation context.

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 carries a heavy burden for explaining parameters. It does mention optional channel and author filters, which maps to channel_id and author_id, but it entirely omits the required guild_id and content parameters and does not explain limit or offset semantics. This is only partial compensation for the schema's silence.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Search server messages', which immediately distinguishes it from reading or editing messages. It also identifies optional channel and author filters, giving the agent a concrete sense of scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like read_messages, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_messages over read_messages, get_message, or other sibling tools. It implies a search use case due to the verb, but there is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The indexing note is operational guidance, not usage-selection guidance.

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