messages_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is embedding-based semantic matching rather than literal keyword matching, but it omits return format, pagination/precedence, and any auth or scope constraints for an 8-parameter read tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by scope. 'Finds messages by meaning' is mildly redundant with 'semantic search,' but otherwise the text is tight and earns its space.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and filter scope adequately, and the schema supplies full parameter detail. It would be stronger if it hinted at result shape or how many results to expect, but nothing essential is missing 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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories (contact, group chats, group name, attachments) without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 method ('Semantic search for iMessages/SMS using AI embeddings') plus the resource it operates on, which distinguishes meaning-based search from keyword search. It does not explicitly name siblings like messages_recent or messages_conversation, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the resource and mechanism are otherwise unambiguous.

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?

Filtering capability ('by contact, group chats, specific group name, and attachments') implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus messages_recent, messages_conversation, or smart_search, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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