search_message_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return structure and the include_context parameter but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or discuss any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or idempotency. The search semantics are implied as safe.

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 concise and well-structured, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The key information (verb, resource, parameters, return) is front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, simple types) and the presence of an output schema defining return objects, the description is complete. It explains all parameters, the return value, and the scope of the search. No gaps are apparent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description compensates by explaining each parameter (query, chat_id, limit, include_context) with their purpose and default values, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'message contents across all chats', distinguishing it from siblings like search_chat_names (searches chat names) and get_messages (retrieves messages without search). The scope and filtering are explicitly mentioned.

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 implies usage for searching message content with optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_chat_names. No exclusivity or when-not conditions are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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