Find chats

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that, such as parallel search in comma-separated usernames and round-robin result merging, plus mode-dependent behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense and technically complex, mixing multiple modes and filter behaviors into long sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose but the second sentence is overloaded with semicolon-separated conditions, making it harder to parse quickly. It could be restructured into clearer segments.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers the success return shape ('dict with key chats'), explains parameter modes, and points to full documentation. However, it references 'include_peers filters' and 'flag-based filters' that do not correspond to any schema parameters, which may confuse users.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that certain parameters (min_date, max_date) switch the search mode from global to dialog list, and that query is required only for global search, enriching the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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: 'Find users/groups/channels by name, username, or phone.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like search_messages_globally (messages) and get_chat_info (individual chat details).

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 explains when to use global search versus dialog list filtering based on parameters (e.g., 'Global search (query required)... with min_date, max_date, or filter...'), providing clear context for selecting search modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops 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.