Search messages across all dialogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope of the search (across every chat) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, result limits, or how filters apply. With good annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the second sentence provides a memorable use case. No wasted words; every phrase 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?

With 6 parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how the various filters interact. The tool has moderate complexity that the description fails to address, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention any parameters except indirectly the query. There is no explanation of filter, minDate, maxDate, limit, or accountId. The description adds zero value beyond the schema field names.

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 action ('Search messages'), the resource ('messages'), and the scope ('across every chat the user is in'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_messages (likely scoped to one chat). The use case 'find that link about X' further clarifies the intended purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to search across all chats, e.g., finding a specific piece of content ('find that link'). It implies this is for global search when the chat is unknown, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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