search_mail

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses that results are summaries, excludes bodies, and are ordered newest first. It does not cover auth/rate-limit/error behavior, but nothing in the description is misleading.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the search capability and then add the no-filter behavior and follow-up action. Every sentence contributes new information without redundancy.

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?

For a read-only search tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers invocation defaults, output shape, ordering, and how to get full content. No output schema exists, so the explicit summary/uid guidance is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by stating filters can be combined arbitrarily and clarifying the no-filter default, which is not evident from the individual schema fields alone.

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?

States a concrete action — searching email — with the exact dimensions it searches: free-text, sender, recipient, subject, and date range. It also differentiates itself from get_message by noting it returns summaries, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on the no-filter case (returns recent inbox) and explicitly routes to get_message when full text is needed. This makes the boundary between search_mail and its retrieval sibling clear.

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