search

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals read-only access in connected mode, different ranking behavior, on-the-fly sandbox provisioning, untrusted-data provenance, and injection safety warnings. It even describes the response's `safety` block, which is extensive transparency.

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 longer than average but well-structured: core function first, then modes, then safety. Each sentence adds value, though the safety paragraph could be slightly tighter. It remains focused and readable, earning a solid 4.

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 9-parameter tool with two distinct modes and no output schema, the description covers mode semantics, parameter restrictions, safety, and expected behavior well. It does not fully specify the response structure beyond 'where it matched' and the safety block, but this is acceptable given 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 coverage is 67%, but the description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: it explains the `messages` parameter's sandbox role (rank untrusted data), `token` auto-provisioning, and that `from`, `after`, `before` are ignored in sandbox mode. This compensates for undocumented `focus`, `limit`, and `agentId` 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 the tool's function: 'Find a specific message by sender / subject / content — most-relevant + newest first; each hit says where it matched.' This includes a specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from siblings like read_email and triage by focusing on search/ranking.

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 explains two modes and when to use each: pass `messages` for sandbox (free, zero setup) or omit it with RADMAIL_API_KEY for connected real-inbox search. It also notes that `from`, `after`, and `before` are CONNECTED mode only. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like `triage` or `list_right_now`, so guidelines lack explicit alternatives.

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