Search LINE messages

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important non-obvious behavior: it is sequential, roughly seconds per room, reports progress per room, returns error entries for unmatched refs, and a bad ref never fails the whole search. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent set expectations and interpret results.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the core purpose, and a short second paragraph carries the behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the remaining operational essentials: scoping, performance, progress reporting, and partial-failure semantics. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 high (83%) and the parameter descriptions are already rich, including room ref types, date formats, and scroll behavior. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the 'per room' concept, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search a keyword inside the given rooms only.' It clearly defines the scope (given rooms only) and the result shape (only rooms with matches), which distinguishes it from message-retrieval siblings like get_messages and from any unscoped search.

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 main description states that search is restricted to the given rooms, and the rooms parameter explicitly says to 'Get candidates from list_rooms first' and that unscoped search is not offered. This gives solid context and a clear prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when a different operation should be chosen.

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