Search the archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that query matches sender and subject, that body_query full-parses candidates, that it is capped, and that the result reports scanned candidates. This goes beyond basic read/write safety and explains performance-relevant behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a focused explanation of the key parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or 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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what is indexed, how query works, how body_query differs, and the cap/results. It does not fully describe the result structure beyond the scanned count, which would have been helpful without an output schema, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning to body_query by explaining its capped, full-parse nature and the advice to narrow filters first, which the schema does not convey. It also groups query as matching sender and subject, reinforcing schema but adding little new beyond body_query.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'indexed envelopes' with a scope of from/to/subject/date. It differentiates from siblings like open_archive and get_message by focusing on searching across messages, not opening or retrieving a single message.

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 gives explicit usage guidance for the body_query parameter, advising to narrow with sender/date filters first due to the cap. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know to use it for searching rather than opening or retrieving.

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