Search Message Clicks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint—'requires link tracking'—which is non-obvious and not present in the schema. This improves transparency without contradicting 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and includes a critical prerequisite in parentheses. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 search tool with 5 optional filters, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite, and the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it omits guidance on filtering semantics and pagination, which limits its completeness for an agent deciding how to invoke it effectively.

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 only 40% (only count and offset have descriptions). The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of tag, recipient, or messagestream, nor does it add details beyond the schema. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 ('Search') and resource ('link click events across outbound messages'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like search_message_opens and get_click_counts. The parenthetical '(requires link tracking)' adds useful scope without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to find link click events on sent messages, and it adds an important prerequisite ('requires link tracking'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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