search_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping behavior (global or chat) and does not mention other behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or rate limits. It adds some value but not rich context.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope. There is no filler or redundant information, and it is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

With output schema and annotations present, the description provides essential scope information but omits nuances like pagination, filtering options, or how 'globally' differs from other search tools. It is adequate for a straightforward search but has clear gaps in behavioral and parameter detail.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies 'query' via 'по тексту' and 'chat' via 'глобально или в чате', but leaves 'limit' and 'from_user' without added semantic explanation. Partial compensation only.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Поиск' (search), identifies resource 'сообщений' (messages), and clarifies scope 'глобально или в чате' (globally or in a chat). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_global by specifying where the search applies.

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 usage for text-based message search with optional chat scoping, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_global or get_history. It gives context that the search can be global or chat-scoped, but lacks exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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