Bot: search messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are ordered newest first, and the index normalizes Arabic/Persian yeh/kaf variants, Persian vs Latin digits, and ZWNJ presence, so the agent knows matching is fuzzy rather than exact.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, followed by the matching-semantics caveat. No filler, though the Unicode sentence is dense and could be trimmed slightly.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers ordering and match normalization. It stops short of stating that omitting chat_id searches across all chats, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 limit, query, and chat_id are already documented. The description adds only that matching happens by text, without explaining the default all-chats scope when chat_id is omitted or the ordering/limit interaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (stored messages) with a scope qualifier ('newest first'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling bot_get_new_messages, leaving the agent to infer that this searches the historical store rather than polling for new arrivals.

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 phrase 'stored messages' implies a historical search use case versus live retrieval, but no when/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. bot_get_new_messages) is given. Usage is only implied.

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