search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' inherently indicates a read-only operation and the description names the search scope, but it does not mention behavior beyond that, such as search semantics, result ordering, pagination, or access requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose.

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 description plus the schema is sufficient for a very basic invocation, especially with sensible defaults on limit, account, and mailbox. However, the mismatch between 'folder' and 'mailbox', the lack of alternative routing, and the absence of parameter explanations leave the agent without enough context for confident, nuanced use.

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%, so the description must compensate for unexplained parameters. Only 'query' is loosely described as a 'keyword', while 'limit', 'account', and 'mailbox' are not explained, and 'folder' does not align with any schema property name.

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 names a specific action ('Search'), a resource ('a folder'), and the searchable fields ('subject, sender, and body'), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like list_emails. However, 'folder' does not map exactly to the schema's 'mailbox' parameter, adding slight ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_emails or get_email. The keyword-search intent is implied, but the description does not state exclusions or name alternatives, leaving tool selection to inference.

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