hey_search

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the two-stage cache-then-network lookup and the latency/freshness tradeoff controlled by force_refresh. It stops short of describing result payload, ranking, or what happens when the cache is cold and the network fails.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, retrieval mechanism, and the override flag. The core intent is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the description covers the operational behavior an agent needs to call it sensibly. The remaining gap is that it never indicates the result shape (email objects) or result-set behavior, which an agent must infer from siblings.

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 all three parameters including ranges and defaults are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces force_refresh's meaning ("real-time results"), adding no constraint or format detail beyond the schema — the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search emails by query") that clearly separates it from the sibling list_* tools, which enumerate rather than query. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource and intent are unambiguous.

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 explains the retrieval flow (cache first, then network) and points to force_refresh for real-time results, which implies when to use which mode. However it never says when to reach for hey_search versus hay_list_emails or other listing siblings, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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