search_tg_history

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

No annotations provided. Description implies read-only search behavior and includes scope (past conversations, bidirectional, with time and sender). Does not explicitly state non-destructive nature or rate limits, but adequate for a search tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, no fluff. First sentence defines action and scope, second provides clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), description covers core purpose, usage, and behavioral context. Missing details on return format or chat_id usage, but not critical for typical search tool.

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 coverage is 50% (keyword described, chat_id not). Description adds no information about chat_id parameter beyond schema. Only keyword is implied by context. Insufficient compensation for missing schema description.

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 clearly states full-text search of all past Telegram conversations with direction, time, and sender. Explicitly prioritizes this tool over not remembering, distinguishing it from siblings like get_recent_context.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use when users mention past events like '之前/上次/我們討論過', and not to default to saying '不記得'. Provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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