Search dialogs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the search targets name/title/username, but it does not discuss behavior beyond that, such as result ordering or pagination. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, focused sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundant information, and it is appropriately concise.

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 simple read-only search tool, the description plus annotations and schema provide sufficient guidance for basic use. However, the accountId parameter is not explained, and there is no mention of result format or ordering, leaving minor gaps.

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 only 33% (only query has a description). The description adds meaning by specifying which fields the query matches, but it does not clarify the limit or accountId parameters, which remain undocumented. This partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('dialogs'), and clearly states the matching criteria: substring against name/title/username. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_messages, search_contacts, and search_global.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to search dialogs by substring), but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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