Search messages globally

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral nuances: 'Global search ignores include_total_count' and 'Success: message list and metadata dict' describes return structure. These details inform the agent about parameter behavior and expected output, adding value over the 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 compact and efficient, front-loading the core purpose and scope, then covering query format, filters, output, and a behavioral note in just four short sentences. Every sentence conveys useful information without redundant fluff, earning a 5.

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 tool with 8 parameters and a rich schema, the description effectively complements the structured data by clarifying global scope, output shape, and a key behavioral caveat. It doesn't need to explain every parameter because the schema does. The documentation link adds an escape hatch for deeper context.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema says, though it does restate query format ('Comma-separated query terms') and mentions include_total_count being ignored, which the schema also covers. This is sufficient but not additive.

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 core function: 'Search all Telegram chats at once' with explicit scope distinction ('not scoped to one chat'). This unambiguously differentiates it from per-chat search tools like get_messages, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 gives clear context that this is for global cross-chat searching, contrasted with per-chat scope. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the 'not scoped to one chat' phrasing strongly implies when to use it. The documentation link provides further guidance.

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