Search Google Chat

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world semantics, and the description adds real value beyond them: a ~20-result cap with Chat's ordering, the exact result fields, the "You" author convention, local timestamp format, and [] on no match. The result cap is hedged ("~20") and pagination/truncation behavior isn't stated, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with what it does and what it returns, then the follow-up routing and the empty-result case. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and does so fully — result count, ordering, per-message fields, and the empty-array case. Combined with the read_thread handoff, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is already described as words typed into the Chat search box, which the description merely echoes. The description adds no syntax detail (quotes, operators, result narrowing) beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search messages") plus scope ("in all of the user's spaces and DMs"), and anchors it to a familiar behavior ("like the Search chat box"). This clearly separates it from list_spaces, read_messages, and read_thread.

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?

Gives a concrete next-step alternative: "Use read_thread for a result's full thread," which routes the agent correctly after a search hit. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer list_spaces or read_messages instead of searching, so the exclusion guidance is partial rather than complete.

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