td_search_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Search for messages' conveys a read-only intent, but it does not clarify matching behavior, ordering, pagination, or limits. It doesn't contradict anything, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 one short sentence, easy to parse and front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could add a little more practical detail without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is simple with three parameters and a self-explanatory purpose, but there is no output schema or annotation to cover return values or safety. The description does not mention what results look like or how this search differs from history listing, leaving moderate 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds only the dialog scoping context, which is already implied by the dialog parameter description. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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?

Description states a clear verb 'Search', a resource 'messages', and the scope 'in a dialog'. It is distinct from siblings like td_search_files and td_list_files, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from td_get_message_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?

The description implies the tool is used to find messages inside a dialog, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over td_get_message_history or td_search_files. Context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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