slack_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool accepts Slack-specific search operators, which is important. However, it does not state whether results include snippets, how workspace selection affects scope, whether pagination occurs, or any access/visibility limitations, leaving key runtime behavior unspecified.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the essential syntax constraint. Every sentence contributes, and there is no redundant or tangential 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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for a basic invocation but leaves important context unstated: what a result looks like, whether search is limited to channels the Slack app can access, and when to choose this over read-based siblings. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats operator examples already in the query schema and adds little meaningful detail about sort, limit, or workspace semantics. It is not misleading, but it does not materially elevate understanding beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action (search) and the resource (messages across a Slack workspace), and the reference to Slack's search syntax adds useful specificity. It does not explicitly differentiate from slack_read_messages or slack_read_thread, but the search-focused verb and workspace-level scope make the intent reasonably distinct.

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 the tool is for finding messages via query syntax, but it does not explain when to use this vs direct channel reads, thread reads, or list operations. No exclusions or alternate tool routing is provided, leaving the when-to-use decision partly to inference.

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