Rechercher des mails

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the scope (400 most recent), search fields (subject, sender, body optionally), and performance consideration (slower with body). Missing details on result format or sorting, but sufficient for a search tool.

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, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value: scope, search targets, conditional body search, optional filters. No redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core behavior and all parameters. It could mention what the results contain (e.g., subject, sender, date), but for a search tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use.

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%, but the description adds meaning: 'mot_cle' is searched in subject/sender, 'expediteur' is a substring filter, 'depuis_jours' filters by recency, 'inclure_corps' makes it slower. This goes beyond schema definitions.

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 it searches recent inbox emails by keyword in subject and sender, with optional body search and filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lister_mails' which lists all mails without search.

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 explains when to use: to search emails by keyword with optional filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.

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