search_mail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the compact list output, handle semantics, query scope, folder wildcard, and date format. However, it does not mention matching behavior, sorting, pagination semantics, or side-effect/safety profile; the disclosure is useful but partial.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, the output/handle chain is stated next, and the parameter/date notes are dense but non-redundant.

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?

The description gives enough to start using the tool: output shape, handle purpose, folder wildcard, and date format. But with 11 parameters and no annotations, important semantics (limit/offset, sender/subject matching, boolean filters) are left to inference; the tool is functional but not fully specified.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for query, folder (including '*' wildcard), and since/until date format, but leaves sender, subject, unread_only, flagged_only, has_attachments, limit, and offset without behavioral clarification beyond their names.

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 starts with 'Tìm mail' (search mail), then states the output ('danh sách gọn kèm handle') and the downstream use (read_mail). This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly separates search_mail from siblings like read_mail, get_thread, and list_folders.

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?

It gives concrete usage cues: query searches mail content, folder='*' searches all folders, dates use YYYY-MM-DD, and returned handles feed read_mail. It stops short of naming when not to use search_mail or explicitly comparing alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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