search_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that behavior changes based on the presence of chat and that from_user is coupled with chat. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, how limit behaves, what happens if from_user is used without chat, or any result-ordering/pagination 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the key scoping behavior. No filler words or redundant restatements of the schema are present.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. Still, the description is incomplete as a standalone guide: it omits limit semantics, the from_user-without-chat edge case, and any guidance distinguishing this tool from search_public. These are meaningful gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool 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. It adds meaning for chat (global vs scoped) and partially for from_user (works with chat), and query is implied by 'по тексту'. However, limit is entirely undocumented, and the exact semantics of from_user without chat remain ambiguous.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Поиск сообщений по тексту' (search messages by text). It also clarifies the scope difference between global and chat-scoped search, which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_public', so it falls short of a 5.

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 clearly explains when to search globally (no chat) versus within a specific chat (with chat), which is strong practical usage guidance. It also notes that from_user works together with chat. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_public or get_history, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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