search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It adds 'half-open time range' which explains after/before semantics, but omits other behavioral traits like pagination via limit/offset, snippet_only behavior, or text truncation (max_text_chars). Does not contradict annotations.

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?

One sentence with no waste. It effectively front-loads the primary action and key filters.

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 complex tool with 11 params and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention pagination, snippet behavior, or the meaning of talker, and lacks usage context versus siblings. The output schema exists but the description still needs to cover more ground.

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 has 0% description coverage for properties. Description clarifies only chat, sender, type, and half-open time range (after/before), but leaves other parameters like talker, snippet_only, max_text_chars, limit, offset unexplained. It provides some semantic value but not enough for an 11-parameter tool.

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 local messages and lists optional filters (chat, sender, type, time range). It distinguishes from siblings like read_chat_range by implying keyword-based search, though it doesn't explicitly mention the required 'keyword' parameter.

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 on when to use search vs alternatives like read_chat_range, timeline, or count_messages. It implies usage via the verb 'search' but provides no exclusions or alternative tool references. Given the many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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