Search Emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds meaningful context by specifying that search runs over indexed emails, implying unsynchronized or unindexed messages may not be found, and that queries follow FTS5 semantics. It could still be more explicit about indexing freshness and prerequisites, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object and using a parenthetical for the specific search engine. Every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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 the rich input schema and the existence of an output schema, the description is enough for basic invocation. It is less complete on operational context, such as the relationship to syncing/indexing and explicit alternatives among sibling tools.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described and exemplified. The description only adds the high-level notions of 'full-text search' and 'structured filters', which slightly supplements the schema but does not materially clarify individual parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('indexed emails'), and the mechanism ('full-text search (FTS5) and structured filters'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like list_accounts, get_email, and sync_now, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to find emails by full-text content or structured filters. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, such as using get_email for a known single message.

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