search_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility and does it thoroughly. It reveals the 7-day default cutoff, UTC timezone handling, and the important quirk that global search is scan-order biased and not relevance-ranked. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose and mode selection, and each following sentence adds necessary parameter or behavioral detail. There is no filler, and the length is justified by the complete absence of schema property descriptions and annotations.

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 description covers global vs. chat search, date cutoff semantics, default window, timezone handling, and scan-order bias — all critical for correct invocation. The only minor gap is that chat identifiers (what string or integer represents a chat) are not specified, though the schema allows either and an output schema exists to cover return values.

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%, and the description fully compensates: since_date gets format, default, and timezone semantics; chat gets 'omit for global search'; limit gets its role in collection cutoff; and query is implied by 'Search message text.' All four parameters receive meaningful semantic context.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource — searching message text — and immediately distinguishes the two modes: global search or search within one chat. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_messages or search_files, but the tool name combined with 'Search message text' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear operational guidance: omit chat for global search, use since_date to reach older history, and expect a 7-day default window. It does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_messages or search_files, but the context is strong enough to infer the intended scenario.

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