search_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden but delivers almost nothing: no mention of whether search is case-sensitive, substring vs token matching, pagination via limit, or what results look like. Only the scope constraint is disclosed.

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 efficient sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but the structure itself is clean.

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?

A 4-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to do much more. It omits result format, pagination behavior, account scoping, and the chat identifier format.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at two of them ('chat', 'message text' for query). The limit and account parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving real ambiguity.

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 specific verb (Search) and resource (message text) with an explicit scope constraint (within one chat). The scope phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from search_global, though it never names the sibling directly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite siblings like search_global and read_chat being obvious candidates. The 'within one chat' scope is the only signal an agent gets for when this tool applies.

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