search_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it searches across all mailboxes or only a specific one, or how results are ordered. While the schema covers parameter behavior, the description lacks these contextual details.

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?

Three sentences: first states the purpose, second gives usage guidance, third names alternatives. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns 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?

The description covers purpose and alternatives but lacks details about result format, default mailbox scope, ordering, or pagination behavior. Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete, though the schema fills in parameter details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups filters (sender, recipient, subject, date range, full-text) which maps to parameters, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions. It offers no extra insight into parameter semantics.

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 the tool searches for emails with specific filters (sender, recipient, subject, date range, full-text query) and distinguishes it from simpler email retrieval tools. The verb 'search' plus resource 'emails' and explicit filter list leave no ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you need to find specific emails matching particular criteria') and names two specific alternatives (get_latest_emails, get_unread_emails) with their use cases. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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