Search Messages

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds that it searches by text/time and across spaces, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or multi-space scoping beyond what the schema already indicates. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence: 'Searches for messages in Google Chat spaces by text content and/or time range.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler or redundant phrases, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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 the presence of a rich output schema, detailed parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It captures the essential search capability and differentiates from siblings, though it does not explicitly mention cross-space search or pagination—details available in the schema. The overall package is fairly complete.

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 83%, so parameters are well-documented (e.g., query optional, time_filter syntax, max_spaces defaults). The description adds a high-level mapping of 'text content' to query and 'time range' to time_filter, which is helpful but does not add new meaning beyond the existing schema documentation. The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Searches for messages in Google Chat spaces by text content and/or time range.' It specifies the resource (messages in Google Chat spaces) and the two search dimensions (text content, time range), distinguishing it from Gmail search and other message-related tools like get_messages.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: searching for Chat messages by content or time. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios (e.g., 'use get_messages to fetch a specific thread' or 'use search_gmail_messages for email'). The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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