discord_search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'search' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are ordered, whether it's paginated, or any limitations. For a search operation in a messaging platform, users need to understand the result format and constraints.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'text query and filters', which aligns with the schema's documented parameters. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Search for messages in a Discord channel with text query and filters'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('messages'), and domain ('Discord channel'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_get_message_history' or 'discord_get_message', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'discord_get_message_history' and 'discord_get_message', there's no indication of when this search tool is preferred over those retrieval tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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