search_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by saying results are 'lightweight summaries, newest first', but it does not disclose safety (read-only nature), pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or any rate-limit/auth caveats. The return-shape note is helpful but the transparency is partial.

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 with no filler: the first states what it searches and by what criteria, and the second describes the result shape and ordering. The essential information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no per-parameter schema descriptions, a 9-optional-parameter search tool needs more context than this. The description leaves unclear how criteria are combined, what date syntax is expected, and what fields the 'lightweight summaries' actually contain. It is usable for a simple search but incomplete for robust invocation.

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 all 9 parameters are undocumented, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping search criteria (sender, subject, free text, date range, unread/flagged) to the likely parameters, but it omits details such as date format, folder default, limit behavior, and how multiple criteria combine. This is adequate but shallow.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search emails in a Yahoo Mail folder' and enumerates the supported criteria (sender, subject, free text, date range, unread/flagged). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_folders, get_email, mark_read, and send_email, which serve different operations.

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 opening 'Search emails' makes the general use case clear, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_email for retrieving a specific message or list_folders for folder discovery. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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