line_search_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool lists/searches chats and returns IDs; it does not mention pagination, filtering semantics, side effects, authentication requirements, or any limitations. For a no-annotation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The downstream usefulness of the returned chat IDs is a valuable addition without any wasted words.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too minimal. It explains what the tool returns conceptually but omits parameter semantics, result shape, and behavioral details, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, query, unread_only). The agent receives no guidance on how these parameters affect the search or list behavior, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 action and resource: 'List or search LINE chats.' It also differentiates from sibling tools by clarifying that returned chat IDs are inputs for message tools, which distinguishes it from line_get_messages, line_send_message, and status/capability tools.

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 phrase 'Chat IDs returned here are used by message tools' provides clear context for when to use this tool: before message-related operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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