huddo_search

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

readOnlyHint already declares the safety profile, and the description adds genuine behavioral context: it fetches new messages before searching (a network/sync side effect), matching is case-insensitive across text and attachment names, and the last output line names rooms whose older history isn't stored. That last point is valuable output-shape disclosure the annotations cannot provide.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by matching behavior and the incomplete-history caveat. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers freshness behavior, matching semantics, and return ordering plus the truncated-history warning. Only minor gaps remain, such as how results are paginated relative to the limit parameter, which the schema already documents.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: matching is case-insensitive and applies to attachment names as well as text, and a query is optional when filters are supplied. These details clarify how query/has_file/from interact rather than restating field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the messages of all your rooms"), including scope (all rooms or one room), the storage domain (local machine), and the return shape (newest matches with room). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like huddo_read and huddo_list without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by "Search the messages" and the room filter, but no alternative is named and there are no exclusion conditions (e.g., when to use huddo_read instead, or hunt for attachments via huddo_files). An agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.

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