deep_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. It discloses the two-step behavior: full-text search then context expansion. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. However, it lacks details on performance, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which prevents a higher score.

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 succinct sentences, front-loading the core purpose and use case. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 high schema coverage and the presence of sibling tools for simpler searches, the description adequately explains the tool's unique value (context expansion). However, without an output schema, it could briefly describe the response format or error states for completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'keywords' schema already explains FTS5 MATCH with OR). The description explains the overall process but not individual parameters, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 verb 'search' and resource 'messages', specifies the technique 'FTS5' and the unique feature of expanding each hit with context messages. It also explicitly states the use case for 'did anyone mention X' style queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools that might only list messages without 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use for "did anyone mention X" style queries where conversation context matters,' providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for simpler searches, which would elevate it to a 5.

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