search_in_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses 'read-only' behavior and references the underlying iter_messages method, indicating it calls a Telegram API. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, search case-sensitivity, or what happens with no results. The added context is helpful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide a technical shortcut. No redundant content or filler; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and underlying call.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It captures the core behavior, read-only nature, and parameter mapping. However, it doesn't explain how to specify the 'chat' parameter (e.g., ID vs username) or the query syntax, which could cause misuse. Given the tool's low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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. The T7 line maps query and limit to iter_messages parameters, giving meaning to those. However, the 'chat' parameter is not explained (e.g., what format or how to obtain it), and query is not described beyond 'по тексту'. The description adds partial value but leaves gaps.

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 tool searches for messages inside a chat by text ('Поиск сообщений ВНУТРИ чата по тексту'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_history by focusing on text search within a specific chat. The additional T7 mapping reinforces the 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 implies usage scope with 'ВНУТРИ чата', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_history or digest_unread. No alternative tools are named, and no exclusions are provided. The T7 hint gives a usage pattern but not decision guidance.

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