Search the Slack API surface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral constraint: results are filtered to methods this server allows, and `include_blocked` relaxes it. It also describes the return payload (signature, JSDoc, argument interface). It does not mention rate limits, error conditions, or whether fetching a `type` returns anything different in shape.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and returning format before the optional parameter hints. Every sentence adds information an agent can act on.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return payload, so an agent knows what a hit looks like. Scoping behavior and the main parameter escape hatches are covered. Minor gaps remain around result ordering/pagination and how a `type` lookup result differs from a method lookup.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description nudges above it by giving purpose-level meaning to two params: `type` fetches a referenced (defined-elsewhere) type, and `include_blocked` widens the search to the full Slack API rather than this server's allowlist. It still does not clarify the interaction between a name-fragment `query` and an exact `type`, which the schema leaves ambiguous.

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: 'Find Slack Web API methods by name, description, or argument type,' and adds the scope constraint 'searches only the methods this server allows.' It also names what is returned (TS signature, JSDoc, argument interface). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `execute`, so an agent must infer search-vs-run on its own.

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 guidance is limited to parameter selection ('Use `type` to fetch a referenced type, or `include_blocked` to search the full API') rather than when to call this tool instead of `execute`. The discovery-before-execution workflow is only implied by the tool name and description. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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