Buscar en bandeja de entrada

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying the search scope (Inbox) and behavior (simple substring search on subject). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details like result ordering, case sensitivity, or pagination behavior, which could be relevant for an agent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, avoiding unnecessary detail or repetition. It is appropriately succinct for a simple tool.

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 simple search tool with clear annotations (readOnlyHint=true), a well-defined schema, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is searched, where, and how (substring on subject), and the schema handles parameters. No additional context is necessary for correct 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 50%: 'query' has a description in the schema ('Texto a buscar en el asunto del correo'), and the tool description reinforces its meaning. The 'limit' parameter has no schema description, but its name and constraints (integer, default 15, max 50) are self-explanatory. The description does not add detail beyond the schema, but the parameters are simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 tool's purpose: to search messages in the Inbox by subject substring. It uses a specific verb ('Busca'), indicates the target resource ('mensajes en Inbox'), and specifies the filter criterion ('Asunto contenga el texto indicado'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ews_list_inbox (lists all) and ews_get_message (retrieves a specific message).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find messages in the Inbox by subject text. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when full-text search or folder-wide search is needed. It lacks the explicit exclusionary guidance seen in top-tier examples.

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