Search messenger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that this is non-destructive. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying that found messages are enriched with reads, mentions, reactions, thread, forwarded, and from_me, and that found users include a chat_id for addressing. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loading the core search scope before adding enrichment details. Every clause contributes useful information, though the phrase 'через HTTP registry' is a minor technical detail that could be omitted without losing value. Overall it is tight and structured well.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the enrichment fields returned for messages and the chat_id for users, giving the agent important expectations for results. It does not fully describe the overall response shape or how results are grouped across messages, users, and chats, but the reference to read tools plus the schema-covered parameters make it reasonably complete for invocation.

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 100%, with all three parameters (query, limit, entities) already documented in the schema. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning; its extra details address output behavior, not parameter interpretation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Поиск по сообщениям, пользователям и чатам', which names a specific verb and three distinct resources, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from read tools by noting results are enriched 'так же, как в read-инструментах', which differentiates it from siblings like get_message and get_history.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: it searches across messages, users, and chats, which suggests it is for discovery when IDs may be unknown. However, there is no direct statement about when to prefer search over get_message, list_chats, or get_history, nor any when-not guidance. The reference to read tools implies a relationship but does not spell out the decision rule.

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