search_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('formatted list of messages') but lacks critical details: authentication requirements (implied by 'user_google_email' param but not stated), pagination behavior (implied by 'page_size' param but not explained), rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence about return values could be integrated more smoothly, and there's room to add brief usage context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and return format but misses parameter explanations, authentication context, pagination behavior, and error handling. For a search tool interacting with Google Chat API, this leaves the agent with insufficient operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'text content' which relates to the 'query' parameter, but doesn't explain the purpose of 'service', 'space_id', 'user_google_email', or 'page_size'. It doesn't clarify parameter relationships, formats, or constraints, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the tool searches for messages in Google Chat spaces by text content, providing specific verb ('searches') and resource ('messages in Google Chat spaces'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_messages' (which likely retrieves without search) and 'search_gmail_messages' (which searches Gmail instead of Chat), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or compare with similar tools like 'get_messages' or 'search_gmail_messages'. The agent must infer usage from the description alone without explicit direction.

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