hide_my_email_search

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'inferred' hints at potential inaccuracies, and 'capped' implies a result limit. Combined with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the agent has a good safety profile.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information (action, resource, source, constraints). However, it omits parameter details, which could be seen as under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

The description covers purpose and safety but fails to address parameter usage, search behavior (e.g., partial matching), or the meaning of 'inferred'. Given an output schema exists, return format is not needed, but the parameter and usage gaps make it incomplete.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The term 'capped' weakly hints at the limit parameter, but without explicit parameter semantics, the agent lacks critical usage details.

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 action (search), the resource (inferred Hide My Email aliases), and the data source (local Mail metadata). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hide_my_email_get_alias (specific alias retrieval) and mail_search (general mail search).

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 does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like hide_my_email_get_alias or other search tools. It mentions 'capped and read-only' but offers no explicit guidance on selection criteria.

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