search_mail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the hybrid nature and the degradation behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or return format. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the 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 very concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It earns its place by adding the degradation note. No fluff.

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 the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, the return structure, or any prerequisites. The degradation note is helpful but not sufficient for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 not explain the parameters (query, top, account_id) beyond what the schema provides. The description only mentions the query concept implicitly, but no details on top or account_id. This is a significant gap.

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 it performs a hybrid search using provider (Graph/IMAP) and local index, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messages or read_message. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource (mail) in the description, though the name implies it.

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 mail with a hybrid approach, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It mentions degradation to keyword search if embeddings are not configured, which gives some context but no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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