search_messages

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the search is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, whether matching is fuzzy/exact, or what scope limits apply beyond 'all chats'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is lean and direct, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing detail captured in other dimensions.

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 tool with no annotations and two undocumented parameters, this description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent to select and invoke it. The output schema may describe return values, but the description still omits usage context, matching semantics, and behavioral expectations.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain `query` and `limit`, but it never mentions them. The schema only offers type names and a default, so the description adds no semantic value for either parameter.

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 the verb ('Search'), the resource ('messages'), and a meaningful scope ('across all chats'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling read_messages or other chat-scoped tools, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 given about when to prefer search_messages over read_messages, list_chats, or other siblings. The phrase 'across all chats' implies a global-search scenario, but there are no explicit when/when-not conditions.

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