Search messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: stale-room syncing before search, merging of local index and server results with a `source` field, and graceful offline degradation where the local index still answers and `notes` reports the condition. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but every clause carries information (query syntax, filters, result shape, server-merge behavior, sync/offline fallback). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and search syntax before operational caveats, though the run-on parentheticals make it slightly heavy.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (highlighted snippet, thread info, permalink) and result provenance, plus sync and offline behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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, but the description adds query-string semantics not in the schema (all words must match, accents ignored, `*` for prefix search) and clarifies the rooms/include_server_search interaction. Some parameters (after/before, thread_id, limit) get no elaboration beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Full-text search over the locally indexed, decrypted messages of all rooms') and immediately scopes what is searchable, including E2E rooms. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_messages, get_thread and list_rooms, which retrieve rather than search.

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?

Gives strong operational context: when server search is additionally queried (only for specific unencrypted rooms), and that stale rooms are synced unless refresh=false. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use search versus get_messages, so it falls 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.