emails_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), rate limits, or what happens when no results are found. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic statement of purpose, though it could benefit from being more informative while maintaining brevity.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the complex filtering system, return format, error conditions, or usage context. For a search tool with nested parameter structures and no structured documentation elsewhere, this description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 mentions 'specific filters' which hints at the 'filterGroups' parameter but doesn't explain the other 4 parameters ('properties', 'limit', 'after', 'sorts') or provide any semantic context about how filters work, what properties are available, or how to structure queries. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 'Search emails with specific filters' states the verb ('search') and resource ('emails'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'emails_list' or 'emails_get'. It lacks specificity about what kind of search this is (e.g., full-text, filtered, advanced).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emails_list' or 'emails_get'. The description mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't explain when filtered search is appropriate versus simpler listing operations. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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