Search WhatsApp messages

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which lowers the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: search is case-insensitive, operates only on locally synced messages, and cannot access unsynced phone messages. This is useful, non-redundant disclosure.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The core verb and scope are front-loaded, and the limitation is stated in a single additional sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only search tool with clear annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, scope, case-insensitivity, and the key limitation. It does not describe the exact result shape or ordering, but the title and tool name make the return concept clear, and no output schema exists to contradict this.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying query semantics (case-insensitive matching) and chat scoping (all chats or one chat), which maps directly to the optional chat_id parameter. This goes beyond what the schema states.

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: case-insensitive text search over locally held WhatsApp messages, scoped to all chats or one chat. It also clarifies a key limitation (cannot reach unsynced messages), which helps distinguish it from read_messages and other message-related tools.

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: when you need text search across messages, optionally filtered by chat. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like read_messages or get_recent_messages, nor does it state when an alternative should be preferred.

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