Search messages

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 disclosing behavior. It states the searchable fields but does not disclose how matching works (e.g., substring vs exact, case sensitivity), whether filters combine with AND/OR, pagination behavior, ordering, or any other runtime characteristics. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'search' and clearly states the key attributes. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the basic search intent but omits details on return format, filter combination logic, and default behavior of limit and mailbox. It is adequate for basic use but lacks important contextual details for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 schema provides descriptions for from, text, and subject, covering 60% of parameters. The description adds marginal value by grouping these into 'sender, subject, or body text', but it does not explain semantics for limit or mailbox, which have defaults but no descriptions in the schema. The description does not compensate for the incomplete parameter coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'search' with a clear resource 'a mailbox' and names the searchable attributes (sender, subject, body text). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_messages and get_message, which list or fetch messages rather than filter by arbitrary fields.

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 the tool is used for searching a mailbox, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_messages or get_message, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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