Search All Folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the non-obvious trait of searching Sent Messages and Junk in addition to all folders. It does not describe matching semantics, sorting, or performance, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 two short, focused paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior, and the second paragraph provides the decision rule without filler.

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 tool is a read/search operation with an output schema, so the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and alternative selection. The only gap is the lack of permission or safety context, but the absence of annotations is partially mitigated by the explicit read-like scope.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema; the 'all folders' default is already stated in the folders parameter description.

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?

States clearly that the tool searches across ALL folders at once, not just INBOX, and distinguishes itself from the sibling search_emails. The mention of Sent Messages and Junk coverage further disambiguates the scope.

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?

Explicitly recommends this tool over search_emails for determining whether a message exists or whether someone replied, and explains why: replies are often filed into thematic folders by rules, so an INBOX-only search would miss them. This is a direct when-to-use rule with a named alternative.

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