advanced_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the variable response envelope ('total'/'items' vs bare array), the JMAP technical limitation that forces a FilterOperator AND, and the exact membership semantics for require/exclude mailbox IDs. This is high-value behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 relatively long but every sentence delivers unique information: scoping semantics, the list of filters, the JSON envelope behavior, and a JMAP rationale. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details. No fluff, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

Given 14 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all significant aspects: parameter semantics, response format, edge cases like deduplication of mailboxId, and the reasoning behind the implementation. This is a well-rounded spec that allows an agent to invoke the tool correctly and predict results.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical meaning to the mailbox parameters: it clarifies that requiredMailboxIds means membership in ALL (intersection), excludeMailboxIds means NONE, and that mailboxId is folded into the intersection. It also connects hasAttachment/excludeMailboxIds to concrete query patterns. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the tool as 'Advanced email search with multiple criteria' and enumerates the specific filter dimensions (sender, recipient, subject, free-text, date, attachment, unread, pinned) plus mailbox scoping. This distinguishes it from simpler search siblings like search_emails and advanced_search_metadata.

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 description provides concrete usage context, such as 'Use this for queries like “in a parent label but not its archive sub-folder”' and explains when requiredMailboxIds is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast with search_emails or mention when NOT to use it, but the advanced semantics make the intended use case clear.

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