Search MIO Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no matching semantics (substring vs full-text), case sensitivity, result cap, or pagination behavior — all of which matter for a search tool with no output schema.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness means there is little substance behind the lead clause.

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 two fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the definition is callable as-is. But with no output schema, the description should say something about what comes back (message summaries, match count, ordering), and it does not.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains query and folder_id, including the get-mio-folders discovery hint and the all-folders default. The description itself contributes no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Search MIO messages") plus the matching dimension ("by text"), which clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like delete-mio-message. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative, get-mio-messages, so an agent must infer search-vs-list from the verb alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than get-mio-messages, read-mio-message, or search-people. The only usage signal is the word "search", leaving the choice between listing and searching to inference.

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