search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (search) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, whether the search returns full email content or just metadata, whether filters are combined with AND semantics, or any pagination/limit behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then lists filter categories. It is appropriately sized, though a bit list-like; it could perhaps be restructured to also convey output behavior without significant length cost.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no explicit return-value description, the tool is under-specified. An agent cannot know what the tool returns (message list? full content? counts?), how filters combine, whether it searches all folders by default or only INBOX (the schema does have a default for folder), or how results are ordered. The description does not compensate for the missing output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level grouping of filters (query, from, to, subject, date range, unread/flagged) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not clarify parameter interactions or examples.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('emails in one.com mailbox'), and lists the available filter dimensions. It does not explicitly name or distinguish from sibling tools like get_recent_emails or get_email_content, but the search-plus-filters framing is distinct enough for an agent to infer its basic 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_recent_emails or get_email_content. The description implies it is for filtered searches, but does not state when it should be preferred, when to avoid it, or how it relates to other email retrieval tools.

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