hey_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, assuring safe invocation. The description adds valuable context about caching and network fallback, which goes beyond the annotations by explaining the two-tier search behavior.

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 extremely concise, using three short clauses to convey purpose, default behavior, and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, caching, and forced refresh. It could mention return format or sorting, but given the annotations and context signals, it is largely sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds minimal new meaning (e.g., cache context for force_refresh), so it meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Search emails by query', specifying the verb (search) and resource (emails). It distinguishes this tool from sibling listing tools like hey_list_emails by focusing on query-based search, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 the default cache-first behavior and provides guidance on using force_refresh for real-time results. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternative tools for different needs, lacking full exclusion criteria.

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