chats_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only transport trivia (POST route, gRPC method, socket channel); it says nothing about matching semantics (prefix vs substring), whether results are scoped to the given channel only, or how 'limit' affects pagination.

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 definition is a single compact line with the core verb+resource front-loaded. The endpoint/gRPC/socket parenthetical is mostly noise for tool selection, but it is short and does not obscure the primary statement.

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 no output schema, the description should indicate what comes back (chat objects, ids, ordering) and how limit bounds the result set; it does neither. For a search tool with an unconstrained query parameter, this leaves the agent guessing at both input and output 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It partially maps 'a channel's' to channelId and 'by name' to query, but gives no meaning or default for limit, which is entirely undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search a channel's chats by name') plus the underlying endpoints, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as messages_search or contacts_search, which also perform searches over different resources.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'by name' weakly implies a name-matching search, but nothing tells an agent why it would pick chats_search over chats_list or messages_search.

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