Mail Search Messages

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already declare the safe, non-mutating behavior. The description adds no substantive behavioral detail beyond the generic 'Delegated Apple domain tool' phrase, so it contributes little beyond the 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 text is short, but the single sentence is filler: it repeats the tool identifier and adds a generic wrapper label. It does not front-load any actionable behavior and fails to earn its place.

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 4-parameter search tool with 0% schema description coverage and many mail-related sibling tools, the description leaves out all usage and selection details. The output schema and annotations help, but the description itself is far too sparse for reliable invocation.

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. It does not explain query syntax, limit semantics, mailbox format, or unread_only behavior; parameter names and defaults alone are insufficient compensation.

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 only restates the tool name ('mail_search_messages') and labels it a 'Delegated Apple domain tool', without saying that it searches mail, what results it returns, or how it differs from mail-related siblings. This is essentially a tautology of the name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of mail_list_mailboxes, mail_get_message, mail_get_thread, or messages_search_messages. No context is given about query construction, mailbox scoping, or exclusions.

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