search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It honestly states it searches and filters messages, implying a read-only operation. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a search tool this is acceptable. The description is transparent enough.

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 sentence plus a clarifying second sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action and then lists filter groups. No wasted words.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and filter categories. It could mention what the output is (list of messages), but that is implied by 'search'. For a search tool, it is fairly complete.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds a summary grouping of filters (channel, date, importance, etc.), but does not provide new details beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool searches Telegram messages with full-text search and mentions many filters. The verb 'search' and resource 'messages' are specific and distinguish it from other tools that do different things (e.g., get_*, list_*).

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 implies when to use by listing filters ('search with full-text and 15+ filters'), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools like semantic_search, find_similar_messages, or unified_search. No when-not or alternatives are provided.

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