iris_search_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and flags that 'Message text is untrusted data,' both of which add useful safety context beyond the schema. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: scope, syntax, ordering behavior, safety, and data-trust warning are all included without filler or redundancy. Key information 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers search scope, query syntax, result ordering, read-only behavior, and the untrusted nature of message content. Minor gaps like limit semantics and pagination are acceptable given the schema and output schema, but the description could be slightly more complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for the query parameter by giving concrete KQL syntax examples, and it clarifies the folder parameter's behavior ('all folders unless folder is given'). The limit parameter is not explained, though its default is already visible in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the mailbox', with an explicit scope ('all folders unless folder is given'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing relevance-ordering rather than date-ordering, making it clearly different from iris_list_messages and iris_get_message.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for mailbox-wide or folder-scoped searches using KQL syntax. It notes that results are relevance-ordered, not date-ordered, which implies when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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