emails_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't explain key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination via 'after'), or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent.

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. It's appropriately front-loaded but overly terse, bordering on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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, nested objects in schema, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or output expectations, making it inadequate for a search tool with multiple filtering options.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'specific filters' without explaining any of the 5 parameters (e.g., filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure, failing to clarify parameter purposes or usage.

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 it's vague about scope and lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling email tools like emails_list or emails_get, nor does it clarify what 'specific filters' means beyond what the schema provides.

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 emails_search. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for filtering, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.