search_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists query syntax examples and does not mention return format, pagination, sorting, whether emails are marked as read, or confirm that this is a read-only operation. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence followed by a compact list of syntax examples. It is front-loaded with the primary action and each syntax token serves a purpose, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the return value or side effects to be fully actionable. It focuses on query syntax but omits what results are returned (e.g., full messages or IDs), how limit applies, and any behavioral details like default folder handling beyond the schema.

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% for all three parameters. The description adds concrete IMAP query examples for the 'query' parameter, going beyond the schema's generic 'IMAP search query' description. This enriches parameter understanding, though limit and folder rely solely on schema.

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 opens with 'Search emails', which clearly states the action and resource. The IMAP syntax examples further specify the kinds of searches supported, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_recent or read_email.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use search_emails versus alternatives such as get_recent or read_email. The IMAP syntax hints at complex search usage, but the description does not state prerequisites, when to choose this tool, or when to avoid it.

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