search_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'query syntax' but doesn't explain what that includes, nor does it cover important aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, result formatting, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'query syntax' but doesn't elaborate on syntax details or provide additional context beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('messages across Slack channels'), and mentions 'query syntax' which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_channel_history' or 'list_channels', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_channel_history' or 'list_channels'. It mentions 'query syntax' but doesn't explain what that entails or when it's preferable to other tools, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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