email_search

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only gives a vague purpose. It omits whether the search is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format. This is a critical gap.

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 extremely short, a single phrase. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. It lacks structure and front-loads only a high-level purpose, leaving out essential information that would help the agent.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how to use the search, what results look like, or how parameters interact. For the complexity, the description fails to provide a complete picture.

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 has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only vaguely mentions 'text/header/date criteria', failing to explain specific parameters like 'query', 'from', 'to', or the purpose of 'folder' and 'limit'. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 purpose: 'Search emails by text/header/date criteria'. It identifies the verb (search) and resource (emails), and distinguishes from sibling tools like email_list by specifying search criteria. However, it could be more precise about the types of criteria.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_list or email_read. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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