slack_search

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: the exact OAuth scopes needed and the token-type caveat. It also mentions cursor-based pagination. It stops short of describing result shape or rate-limit behavior, but with annotations and an output schema present that is a minor gap and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the default-behavior fact is front-loaded. The density of unexplained jargon ('RTS') and the run-on scope list reduce clarity per word.

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?

Return values need not be explained given the output schema, and scope/permission needs are covered. But for a six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the missing explanation of workspace and limit plus the absent sibling differentiation leaves real gaps.

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%, so the description carries the burden for six parameters. It usefully explains the effective defaults for the type-list parameters (messages in public_channel) and names the cursor, but leaves workspace and limit completely unexplained and does not clarify the query syntax.

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?

It states a search verb and mentions that content type lists default to messages in public channels, so the general purpose lands. But the opaque acronym 'RTS' is never expanded, and the description never distinguishes this tool from the sibling slack_search_messages, which an agent will have to disambiguate on its own.

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 scope requirements (search:read.public required, others optional) give useful preconditions for selecting this tool, and the note that user tokens need no action_token is real guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over slack_search_messages or the narrower read/search siblings, and no exclusions.

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