hcm_search_emails

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: it does not describe pagination behavior, result ordering, whether searches are partial/fuzzy, or what data is returned. Since annotations carry the full safety signal and the description adds no extra transparency, the score is low.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single vague sentence does not earn its place for a tool with four parameters and no schema-level parameter descriptions. It provides only the most basic purpose and omits essential operational details.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It fails to explain parameter semantics, result format, search behavior, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on the provided definition.

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%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters: q, limit, finder, offset. It does not explain what 'q' means, how 'finder' is used, or how limit/offset control results. With zero compensation for missing schema descriptions, the agent has no semantic guidance for the parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search worker emails.' It is not a tautology and clearly indicates the tool searches email data associated with workers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling search tools like hcm_search_contacts or hcm_search_phones, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or why an agent should prefer hcm_search_emails over hcm_search_contacts or hcm_search_workers. The only usage signal is the tool's name and minimal phrase, which is not enough to guide selection.

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