proton_search_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the search is scoped to a single folder, matches headers and text, and returns newest-first. It omits connection/auth prerequisites (proton_connect), result caps or pagination, and whether it fails when no folder is specified.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause (scope, match fields, sort order) adds information. No filler or 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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, match fields, and ordering. It is slightly incomplete because it never clarifies how the search target/folder is supplied given the empty parameter list, nor how many results come back.

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?

The schema declares zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description references a `query` placeholder and a folder target that do not exist in the schema at all. That mismatch is actively misleading: an agent may attempt to pass `query` or a folder argument that the schema will reject.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Searches one folder of a Proton Mail account'), and adds scope detail: what is searched (message headers and text) and the ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from proton_list_emails and proton_read_email, though it never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite many sibling search tools (thunderbird_search_emails, outlook_search_emails, search_emails, proton_list_emails). The phrase 'one folder' faintly implies the caller must already know a folder, but no condition for choosing this over proton_list_emails is given.

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