search_emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which fields are matched (sender, subject, content), which is genuine context, but says nothing about matching semantics, default page size, or what happens when no folder is given.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is efficient but tips into under-specification on parameters.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be described. However, for a 3-parameter search tool with zero schema coverage, the description omits the meaning of `limit`, the INBOX default, and result ordering/paging, which an agent needs to call it well.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It explains what the query matches against (sender/subject/content), but never explains the `limit` parameter (default 20) or the `folder` default of INBOX, leaving the two optional parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

A specific verb ("find ... matches") plus the searched fields (sender, subject, content) and scope ("in a folder") tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It is implicitly distinct from list_recent_emails and get_email, but no sibling is named to confirm the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g. use list_recent_emails to browse, get_email to fetch a known message). Usage is only inferable from the word "matches," which implies a keyword query exists.

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