schoolmail_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two useful traits: no setup required and newest-first ordering. It remains silent on permissions, whether it reads a local database vs live server, and result limits, which matters for a search tool.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds constraints. Terse without waste, though the parentheses pack unrelated ideas together.

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 presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but for a five-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the definition leaves too much unspecified (query/sender/top semantics, scope of the 'School' mailbox).

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does so for only one: it clarifies that 'since' is an ISO date. It says nothing about query semantics, sender matching, top limits, or the mailbox default, leaving four params undocumented in both places.

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 clear verb+resource ('Search School inbox in Apple Mail.app'), so the agent knows this queries the local School mailbox rather than the Outlook account. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling outlook_search, so differentiation is left to inference from the app name.

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 only parenthetical content ('no setup; newest first') describes setup/behavior, not when to choose this tool over outlook_search or schoolmail_read. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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