Procurar mensagens

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that the tool only works in user mode and, valuably, that Discord's index may lag and can return SEARCH_INDEXING with retryAfterMs. This is genuine behavioral context an agent needs to handle retries, though return format/pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the search semantics and scope before the mode constraint and the indexing caveat. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 ten fully documented parameters, readOnly/openWorld annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the extra pieces an agent needs: the user-mode requirement and the SEARCH_INDEXING/retryAfterMs async caveat. Only the explicit alternative-tool routing is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters (has, before/after, limit, offset, format, content, authorId, guildId, channelId) in detail. The description only restates the guildId=server / channelId=DM distinction already present in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (procura/search) and resource (mensagens/messages) plus the search dimensions (texto, autor, tipo de conteudo) and scope (server via guildId or DM via channelId). It is clearly a filtered search rather than a sequential read, distinguishing it from read_messages, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the search-by-text/author/type framing and it adds a real prerequisite ('So em modo user'), but it never states when to prefer this over read_messages or get_message, nor any exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap in routing guidance.

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