search_slack_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately notes that results are raw candidate messages and that semantic scoring is the verification agent's responsibility—not the tool's. This is honest about the tool's limitations and the need for downstream processing, though it omits details like rate limits or result limits.

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 is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, and includes only essential context about return behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 straightforward search tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it clarifies the purpose, the nature of results (raw candidates), and how results should be consumed. It could mention result limits or sorting, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples.

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's function: searching Slack for messages that could constitute evidence a commitment was fulfilled. It specifies the resource (Slack messages), the purpose (evidence of fulfilled commitments), and distinguishes it from the sibling search_email_evidence by scope and result handling.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you need to find Slack messages as evidence of commitment fulfillment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list includes search_email_evidence, and the Slack-specific scope makes the intended context clear.

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