search_emails

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious operational context: results are metadata only, limited to 1-500 rows, returned in stable mailbox order, and paging is optional. This goes beyond the safety profile already captured by 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?

One dense sentence with no wasted words; the core operational facts are front-loaded and easy to parse. Despite its brevity, it conveys scope, result bound, ordering, and paging.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape, but the high-complexity 13-parameter input schema with a required nested targets object is largely undocumented. The description is minimally adequate but leaves an agent to infer filter combination and pagination mechanics from parameter names alone.

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 compensate for 13 parameters. It only hints at paging and the 1-500 row limit, leaving required targets, filter semantics, field selection, and cursor usage unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching email metadata rows, bounded to 1-500, with stable order and optional paging. 'Metadata rows' helps distinguish it from sibling get_email and get_emails tools, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

The intended usage is implied: use this tool when searching metadata rows with paging, rather than retrieving full email bodies. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool comparisons are provided.

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