search-emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, default behavior when no parameters are provided, return format, performance implications, or permissions. The description is overly simplistic.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded and immediately understandable. However, it could benefit from brief structural elements like bullet points.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the output is (e.g., list of email IDs, summaries) or default behaviors (e.g., searching inbox by default). It is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by grouping 'date range' and 'keywords', but the individual parameter descriptions already convey the specifics. No value beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Search'), the resource ('emails'), and the filtering criteria (date range and/or keywords). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get-email-content' or 'count-daily-emails', though it does not explicitly highlight these distinctions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative siblings or when to avoid it. The description only implies usage for filtering by dates or keywords, but does not provide explicit context or exclusions.

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