search_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavior: placeholder tokens like [[PERSON_1]] may appear in the query string. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination via 'top', permissions, or scope limits beyond 'whole mailbox'.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the token-syntax detail. Nothing redundant, though the second sentence could be slightly more explicit about where tokens are allowed.

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 exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-parameter search tool the description covers purpose and the non-obvious query syntax; the remaining gap is the undocumented 'top' parameter and any pagination behavior.

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 both parameters. It clarifies that 'query' is a free-text search string supporting placeholder tokens, but leaves 'top' (default 20, clearly a result-count limit) completely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fritextsök i hela brevlådan') and scopes it to the entire mailbox, which distinguishes it from folder-scoped siblings like list_messages/list_folders. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'hela brevlådan' implicitly tells an agent this is a global search rather than a folder listing, but nothing says when to prefer search_messages over list_messages or read_message.

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