Search a folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: returns uids + envelopes, newest first, and that include_locations reports other mailboxes each message appears in. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action 'Search a folder'. It contains no filler and each sentence contributes meaningful information about filtering and return values.

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 the core behavior and return format but omits guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_all_mail, the default result limit, and semantics for text/from/subject. Given the 11-parameter complexity and lack of output schema, it is serviceable but not fully complete.

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 only 55%, leaving several parameters like text, from, subject, unread_only, and flagged_only without schema-level explanations. The description merely lists these filters without adding semantics. It does clarify since format and include_locations behavior, but this is marginal. Baseline 3 applies due to moderate coverage.

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 'Search a folder' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the filter criteria. It distinguishes from search_all_mail by indicating folder scope, but does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it lacks 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_all_mail. 'Combine any of' is about combining filters, not tool selection. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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