tool_fuzzy_search_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns messages with similarity scores, which is useful, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens if no matches are found. The description provides basic functionality but misses important operational context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the parameter explanations provide necessary context without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fuzzy search with scoring), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only status, error handling) and output format clarification (e.g., structure of returned messages with scores). For a search tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves 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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of each parameter: search_term ('text to search for in messages'), hours ('how many hours back to search'), and threshold ('similarity threshold for matching') with practical guidance like 'Lower is more lenient' and default values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('fuzzy search for messages'), resource ('messages'), and scope ('within the last N hours'). It distinguishes from siblings like tool_get_recent_messages (which likely retrieves without search) and tool_get_chats (which focuses on chat threads rather than message content).

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 usage through the time-bound search context ('within the last N hours') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_find_contact (for contacts) or tool_get_recent_messages (for unfiltered recent messages). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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