emails_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful search. For a search tool with complex parameters, this is inadequate.

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 concise with just 5 words, which is efficient. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise—it could benefit from one more clarifying phrase without becoming verbose. The structure is straightforward but lacks front-loading of critical information.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, error conditions, or how parameters interact. For a tool with this level of parameter complexity, the description should provide more contextual guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'specific filters' which loosely relates to 'filterGroups', but doesn't explain the 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their purposes. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 'Search emails with specific filters' states the basic action (search) and resource (emails), but is vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like emails_list. It doesn't specify what kind of search this is (full-text, metadata, etc.) or how it differs from other email-related tools.

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 like emails_list or other search tools. The description mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't explain what scenarios warrant this tool over simpler listing options or how it relates to sibling search tools for other resources.

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