mail_search

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) it discloses the returned fields, the most-recent-first ordering, and — most valuably — that message bodies are untrusted external content, a prompt-injection warning not expressible in annotations. It doesn't address truncation/limit behavior or error cases, but the schema covers the limit.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: capability+scope, return shape+ordering, safety note. Front-loaded with 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and ordering, and adds a security caveat appropriate for an open-world mail search. Minor remaining gaps (what happens when folders is invalid, behavior at the 50-result cap) are low-risk for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the same criteria (remitente, destinatario, asunto, texto, rango de fechas, no leídos, carpetas) without adding syntax, matching semantics, or interaction rules beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Busca en el correo institucional') plus the distinguishing capability: combining multiple criteria at once and spanning multiple or all folders. An agent can infer it differs from mail_list_messages, but no sibling is named outright, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'combinando criterios a la vez ... y a través de varias carpetas o de todas' phrasing makes the use case clear (multi-criteria, cross-folder retrieval) and implicitly contrasts with a plain listing. There is no explicit 'use mail_list_messages instead when...' routing or exclusion guidance.

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