Find chats

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral details: parallel round-robin merging of username searches, global vs dialog list modes, the effect of include_peers on GetPeerDialogs, and flag-based filter timing. This is substantial added context that helps predict tool behavior.

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 somewhat dense and rambles through modes, but each sentence conveys useful behavior. It front-loads the core action and includes a docs reference. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every clause 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 complex tool with 7 parameters, the description covers the main search modes, filter behaviors, and the success response shape. However, it introduces terms like 'flag-based filters' without elaboration and relies on external docs for full detail. Given the output schema exists, the return-value gap is mitigated, but some internal jargon remains unexplained.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description text adds cross-parameter semantics: it explains how comma-separated usernames are searched in parallel, how min_date/max_date toggle dialog-list search, and how include_peers interacts with last-activity data. This meaningfully enhances schema-only information.

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 clear, specific action: 'Find users/groups/channels by name, username, or phone.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_messages_globally (which searches messages) and get_chat_info (which retrieves info about a specific chat). The resource and verbs are explicit.

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 global search is used versus dialog-list/filter-based search, and how comma-separated usernames are handled. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly distinct, so the context is sufficient. It lacks explicit exclusion statements like 'use this for X, not for Y'.

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