search_dm_groups

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but it only states the basic action. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral cues.

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 very concise (5 words), which is efficient but under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It is not structured to enhance readability or provide examples.

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 existence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description fails to mention return format or scope. It does not clarify if it searches only within group DMs or across all DMs with a group attribute.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning for the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The agent cannot infer what constitutes a search or how limit affects results beyond the schema defaults.

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 DMs in group conversations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_dm and search_dm_people. However, it lacks specificity on what constitutes a 'group conversation'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_dm or search_dm_people. The brief description does not offer any contextual advice.

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