mail_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the search is subject-based and includes metadata-only content availability, which provides useful context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like case sensitivity, search scope, or error handling.

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 the key purpose. It contains no wasted words and effectively conveys the tool's function.

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 the tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema (as per context), the description minimally covers the purpose. It mentions 'metadata-only content availability' which hints at return values, but could provide more detail on sorting, pagination, or limitations. It is adequate for a simple search tool but not exhaustive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It hints that 'query' is a subject search but does not specify format, wildcards, or the meaning of 'metadata-only content availability' for the limit parameter. The limit parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 specifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('local Mail metadata'), and the method ('by subject'), while also noting the inclusion of metadata-only content availability. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_get_metadata and mail_get_content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mail_search for full-text vs. subject-only, or when to prefer calendar_search or notes_search. There is no mention of prerequisites, limits, or comparisons.

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