search_messages

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the search is retroactive over history, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, ordering, or how many results are actually returned; with an output schema present, return-shape details are excusable but operational behavior is thin.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence with the sibling comparison immediately after, followed by a compact Args block. Nothing is wasteful, though the Args formatting and blank-line spacing are slightly heavier than necessary for three short parameters.

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 an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and it covers purpose, usage context, and all three parameters. The remaining gaps (auth expectations, result ordering/pagination) are minor for a simple keyword-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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it meaningfully documents all three parameters: query as the search text, chat_id as a single-chat restriction with 'omit for all' semantics, and limit as a max-results cap. It lacks format details (e.g., chat_id must be numeric) and does not restate the default of 30, but covers the intent of every parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search your Telegram messages for a keyword.' It further differentiates the tool by contrasting it with the alert-rule family ('searches history, unlike alert rules which only see new messages'), so an agent can position it against at least one sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It states a clear use condition (retroactive search of history vs. the real-time alert rules) and gives scoping guidance ('omit to search all chats'). It does not explicitly distinguish this from the closer sibling read_messages, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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