thunderbird_search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about result limits, pagination, which account is targeted, or whether the search is case-insensitive; the sentence also breaks off mid-clause ('ignor...'), so any behavioral qualifier it intended is missing.

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 opening clause is well front-loaded with purpose and search fields, but the description is truncated mid-word, so it is under-specified rather than concise. Every fragment that exists earns its place; there just isn't enough of it.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description needs to carry nearly all the weight. Instead it is cut off, leaves the account-scoping clause unfinished, and omits result format and limits, so an agent cannot invoke it reliably.

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 input schema declares zero properties, yet the description references a `query` parameter that the schema does not define, which is a mismatch rather than useful elaboration. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4, but the dangling reference to an undocumented `query` argument creates ambiguity and lowers it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Searches ... messages') and enumerates the searched fields (subject, sender, recipients, body text), which clearly separates it from thunderbird_list_emails and thunderbird_read_email. It never finishes its thought, though, so the scope statement is incomplete.

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 statement of when to use this search versus thunderbird_list_emails, thunderbird_read_email, or thunderbird_search_contacts, and no prerequisites such as needing an account connected first. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Searches'.

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