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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the retrieval mechanism (semantic AI embeddings) and the supported filter dimensions, but says nothing about the return shape, result count defaults beyond the schema, privacy/permission constraints on reading messages, or ranking behavior.

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, well front-loaded with the core mechanism before the filter list. The first two sentences overlap somewhat in restating that it searches by meaning, which costs a little efficiency.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the return format and result semantics that the missing output schema would otherwise supply. Filtering coverage is adequate but the read-path behavior is under-described.

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. The description only restates the filter categories (contact, group chat, group name, attachments) without adding syntax, interaction rules, or defaults beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for a fully-covered 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 (search) and resource (iMessages/SMS) with the crucial qualifier that it is semantic/embedding-based rather than keyword-based, which meaningfully separates it from siblings like messages_recent or mail_search. It does not, however, name any sibling directly, so an agent must infer the routing versus messages_conversation.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'finds messages by meaning' suggests using it for conceptual queries, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus messages_recent, messages_conversation, or smart_search, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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