whatsapp_search_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the search is case-insensitive and has a max limit of 50 results. However, it does not disclose other potential traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly, followed by a structured Args section that efficiently explains each parameter without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with filtering), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral aspects like case-insensitivity and limits. However, it lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or error handling, leaving minor gaps.

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 carries the full burden. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: query is described as 'Text to search for (case-insensitive)', chat_jid as 'Optional - restrict search to a specific chat', and limit as 'Max results (max 50)' with a default implied. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Search for messages containing specific text') and resource ('across all chats'), distinguishing it from siblings like whatsapp_get_messages (which likely retrieves messages without searching) and whatsapp_search_contacts (which searches contacts instead of messages). It explicitly mentions the scope 'across all chats' unless restricted by chat_jid.

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 provides clear context for usage by specifying that searches can be across all chats or restricted to a specific chat using chat_jid. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like whatsapp_get_messages or whatsapp_search_contacts, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use it).

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