search_messages

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful scope by saying it searches recent messages across channels, forum posts, threads, and titles. However, it does not explain result ordering, pagination behavior, or what 'recent' means in practice, so the behavioral disclosure remains moderate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense but efficient, packing the primary action and searchable scope into one statement. The nested parenthetical slightly reduces immediate readability but does not waste wording.

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?

For a search tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives an adequate high-level scope but leaves result behavior underspecified. It does not describe what is returned, how results are ordered, or how the per_channel and max_results controls interact, which matters for correct invocation.

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 71%, so much of the parameter meaning is already supplied by the schema. The description clarifies that the query can target words or an author and identifies the searchable surfaces, but it adds little detail about bot, server selection, channels, max_results, or per_channel beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search recent messages for words or an author. It also defines the searchable scope, including text channels, forum active posts, threads, and their titles. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from read_messages or get_message, which keeps it below a 5.

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 the tool by saying it searches for words or an author, but it does not explicitly contrast this with reading messages directly or retrieving a specific message. There is no guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives are better for broader retrieval.

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