Search the room history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful non-obvious behavior: searches span the entire room, even messages this chat has not read, and filters can be combined freely. It does not explicitly mention result ordering or that the operation is read-only, but 'Find' plus the scope statement covers the main behavioral risks.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by filter capabilities and then the important whole-room scope, so an agent can extract the key information immediately.

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?

For a simple search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to select and invoke it: what is searched, what filters exist, and the scope. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the result format, ordering, or limits, which matters more because no output schema is available.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the parameters into text, sender, and recency, and by stating they can be used in any combination—semantics not fully captured by the individual schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Find earlier messages in the room,' which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from read-focused tools by stating it searches the whole room, not just content this chat has already read.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to find earlier messages with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as 'read' or state when not to use this tool, leaving the contrast with current-message retrieval mostly implied.

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