search_emails

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 but fails to mention critical traits: pagination behavior, result ordering, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the operation. It does not describe the return format (absent output schema), and omits the performance constraint mentioned in the hasAttachment parameter description regarding the 500-email limit.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the primary action. Every phrase serves a purpose: defining the search modality (keyword vs. targeted) and exemplifying filter categories. Despite the tool's complexity (19 parameters), the description avoids redundancy and wasted words.

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?

While the schema provides complete parameter documentation, the description remains minimal given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema or annotations. The phrase 'and more' hand-waves over 12 additional filter parameters. For a search tool with nuanced query modes (OR/AND) and performance constraints, the description adequately introduces capabilities but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Given 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description adds marginal value by categorizing parameters conceptually ('keyword', 'targeted field queries', 'date, read status, domain'), which helps map intent to parameters, but does not elaborate on syntax, format details, or the interaction between query and field-specific parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 core action (Search) and resource (emails), distinguishing between 'keyword' (general) and 'targeted field queries' (specific fields). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling retrieval tools like get_emails_by_sender or get_emails_by_date_range, which could cause selection ambiguity given the large tool set.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous alternatives (e.g., get_emails_by_sender, read_inbox, get_email). It omits prerequisites, performance considerations, and selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names alone.

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