search_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Search emails based on parameters.' It does not mention whether this is read-only, whether it returns full email content or just headers, whether pagination is applied, or how the search_key is interpreted. The behavior is only minimally implied by the word 'Search.'

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 short sentence with no filler words, so it is easy to read. However, it is under-specified and 'based on parameters' is vague and nearly redundant, so it is concise but not effectively informative.

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?

This is a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no usable schema descriptions, yet the description gives almost no operational context. An agent cannot reliably know what to pass for search_key, how pagination works, or what results to expect. The presence of an output schema helps with returned structure, but not with invocation semantics.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters. It does not explain what search_key searches against, what account_id refers to, or how limit and start control results. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the 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 clearly states the action ('Search emails') and the target resource ('emails'), so an agent knows what the tool does at a basic level. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling tool 'list_emails' or clarify what kind of search is being performed, so it stops short of full purpose clarity.

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 search_emails versus alternatives like list_emails or get_email_content. It does not state any use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between this and sibling tools.

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