search_emails

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses that drafts are included by default and how to exclude them via excludeDrafts, including server-side filtering with the $draft keyword. This goes 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?

Two concise sentences convey purpose, scope, and key behavior without waste. Front-loaded with main function.

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?

With 4 parameters fully described in schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers search scope, filtering alternatives, and draft behavior. Lacks mention of pagination or return fields, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for query (body and subject), excludeDrafts (server-side filter), and ascending (oldest first), but the schema already covers semantics well.

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 states 'Full-text search of email body and subject' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool advanced_search by noting the lack of field-specific filtering.

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?

Explicitly tells when not to use this tool ('Does not filter by sender, recipient, or date') and directs to an alternative ('use advanced_search for field-specific filtering'). Also explains draft behavior and how to exclude them.

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