search_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds result ordering (newest first) and matching semantics (case- and accent-insensitive), but says nothing about pagination behavior or what happens with no filters applied.

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, zero filler, with the identifying verb and resource front-loaded and the ordering caveat second. Everything present 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a search tool with seven optional filters an agent would benefit from knowing default behavior with no query and how it relates to the listing siblings. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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 all seven parameters are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description's note about case/accent-insensitive matching slightly enriches the query/sender params, but adds little 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search LinkedIn messages") plus an ordering guarantee. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_conversations/get_conversation, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'search' and 'list'.

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 on when to use this versus list_conversations or get_conversation, and no mention of behavior when query is null (does it return everything?). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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