emails_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' but provides no behavioral details: no information about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite 'after' and 'limit' parameters), response format, or error conditions. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this is critically 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's so brief that it under-specifies rather than being optimally concise. Every word earns its place, but more words would be justified given the complexity.

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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters (including complex nested filterGroups), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what properties can be filtered, how sorting works, what 'after' means for pagination, or what the tool returns. The agent cannot use this tool effectively.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their relationships. It provides no semantic information beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify what 'specific filters' means or how this differs from sibling tools like emails_list or emails_get.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emails_list or emails_get. The description implies filtering capability but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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