search_sms

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

No annotations, so description carries the burden. It discloses that the search is semantic and returns body/direction/timestamps, plus parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, rate limits, or permissions.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured, leading with the core purpose, then return fields, then a clear Args section. No wasted words.

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 three params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return fields sufficiently. It lacks only minor details like pagination or ordering, which are not critical given the output schema.

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 descriptions are missing (0% coverage), but the description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter: query searches content, phone_number_id scopes to a specific number, and limit specifies range and default. This fully compensates for schema gaps.

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 clearly states it is a semantic search across SMS messages, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_threads by targeting SMS messages specifically.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative recommendations. Usage is implied by the name/description—use it to search SMS content—but no exclusions or scenarios are mentioned.

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