Search Emails

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the AND logic and filter criteria, but does not explain pagination (offset/limit) or rate limits. 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?

Two sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with the core action and criteria. Concisely conveys essential information.

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 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers about 60% of parameters. It lacks explanation of limit, offset, folder, and does not mention that results are paginated. Overall acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by listing most key parameters (from, to, subject, since/before, body, unseen_only), but misses limit, offset, and folder. Names are self-explanatory but incomplete.

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 the verb 'search' and resource 'emails', lists specific filter criteria (sender, recipient, subject, date range, body content, unread status), and notes AND logic. It distinguishes from siblings like proton_list_emails.

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 implies usage for searching with multiple filter criteria, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It lacks guidance on using proton_list_emails for unfiltered listing.

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