search_emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds real behavioral context: a 1–500 row bound, deterministic ('stable') ordering, and optional paging. It does not explain how filters combine or what mailboxes default to, but adds value 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?

Single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every phrase ('1–500', 'stable order', 'optional paging') carries distinct information. Minor jargon ('metadata rows') incurs no structural waste.

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?

Output schema and annotations remove the need to explain return values and safety, and the description covers core scan behavior (scope, cap, ordering, paging). For a 14-parameter tool it still leaves gaps—filter composition, date formats, fields projection—making it adequate but not thorough.

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 compensates only for two concepts: the 1–500 result cap (relating to limit) and optional paging (cursor). The other 12 parameters (e.g., after/before date formats, fields, mailboxes) receive no semantic clarification.

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 the verb 'Search' with resource 'emails' ('metadata rows'), plus distinctive behavior: 1–500 rows, stable mailbox order, optional paging. It does not mention the filter criteria or contrast with get_emails, so it stops short of fully distinguishing among siblings.

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 on when to invoke this tool versus get_emails, get_email, or list_mailboxes; no exclusions or alternatives are suggested. The verb 'Search' only implicitly signals a find-by-criteria use case.

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