Search Emails

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: filters combine as AND, only one folder is searched, and the result includes the ref handle that read-email and mark-as-read consume. No contradiction with 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?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first covers the core purpose and filter behavior, the second explains the output format and interoperability. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 complete schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description still adds significant context: folder scope, AND logic, and cross-tool compatibility. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating that all filters combine as AND, which is not explicitly stated in individual parameter descriptions. It also links the output to other tools, but does not deeply elaborate on parameter syntax or formats.

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 that the tool searches emails with specific filters (text, sender, subject, unread state) and scopes to one folder (default inbox). This distinguishes it from list-emails, which lists emails, and search-notes, which searches a different resource.

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 clear context: it searches a single folder with an AND combination of filters, and references list-emails for output format. It implicitly communicates when this tool would be used for filtered email retrieval, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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