find_chats_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by disclosing that matching is case-insensitive and substring-based, and that it operates on 'resolved names' – a useful nuance. For a search tool, this is adequate; it doesn’t explicitly state read-only, but 'Find' implies it. Missing details like pagination or result limits are not critical for such a simple query.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second gives a practical use case. There is no wordy filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and simple search behavior, the description is mostly complete. It explains the search semantics and gives a typical use case tied to a sibling tool (get_history). It does not mention potential multi-word handling or result limits, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and sibling context.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'name' with a description ('Contact or group name to search for'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds semantic value by explaining how 'name' is used: it matches against the 'resolved name' as a case-insensitive substring. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the matching behavior.

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 opens with 'Find chats whose resolved name matches (case-insensitive substring)', which is a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('chats'), and qualifier ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_chats, which would list all chats, and get_history/get_message, which target individual chats.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to locate a named contact or group, e.g., before reading their full history.' This provides a clear use case and a workflow hint (use before get_history). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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