slack_search_messages

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond that: the user-token auth requirement, the search:read scope, and pagination via paging.pages/page.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and auth requirement, then the query and pagination guidance. Most sentences earn their place, though the trailing user_names/mention note is tangential to search itself and slightly compresses multiple ideas into one sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain result-adjacent details like @name rendering and the user_names mapping. It also covers auth and pagination, but omits result contents and the semantics of the sort, count, and highlight parameters.

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%, so the description must carry the burden for six parameters. It explains query format (operators, @name and <@ID> mention syntax) and page, but leaves sort, sort_dir, count, and highlight entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Search messages') plus a precise scope: messages visible to the token, including private conversations it can access. This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like slack_read_channel and slack_read_thread, which are scoped to a single conversation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: search operators to constrain the query and a required user token with search:read. It does not explicitly say when to prefer slack_read_channel or slack_read_thread, or when not to use search.

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