msg_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation and search fields. It does not disclose whether the search is read-only, how matching works, pagination behavior, or the return format, leaving the agent without essential behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the function and scope without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is a straightforward search with complete parameter documentation, but the absence of an output schema and behavioral description means the agent must infer the return format and search semantics. It is adequate but leaves a clear gap regarding expected results and search behavior.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by clarifying that the query parameter matches content, subject, or sender/recipient, and that the agent parameter corresponds to sender/recipient. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Search query' and 'Filter by agent' 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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'messages' and explicitly lists the searchable dimensions ('content, subject, or sender/recipient'), making its purpose clear and distinct from sibling list/read tools such as msg_read_inbox and msg_list_threads.

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 for finding messages by content, subject, or sender/recipient, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference alternative tools. The search scope implies the use case, but no exclusions or comparison with siblings are provided.

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