search_conversations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose pagination behavior, handling of no results, case sensitivity, or what fields are returned. Although an output schema exists, the description does not hint at any special behavior or side effects, leaving key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and efficient, with no redundant phrasing. The primary action and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise without being under-specified, though it could add one or two critical details without losing conciseness.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, this description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention the optional limit default or the fact that results are filtered, and it omits any note about ordering or result limits beyond the schema. Given no annotations, a more complete description would include at least a mention of the return structure or pagination.

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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the query searches both title and message content, which goes beyond the generic 'Text to look for' in the schema, but it does not elaborate on limit's meaning beyond the schema's own description. It adds modest value but is not essential.

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?

States a clear verb 'search' with a specific resource 'conversations' and identifies the scope ('by title and message content'). This distinguishes it from list_conversations, which implies listing all, but it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_conversations or get_conversation. There is no mention of typical use cases, filters, or when to prefer this over listing all conversations. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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