apollo_search_emailer_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool searches messages, implying a read operation, but does not confirm that, nor does it discuss any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with empty results. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. It wastes no words but could benefit from a slightly more structured listing of filter capabilities. Still, efficient for its length.

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 tool has 5 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description ignores pagination details and does not explain how to use page/per_page. The freeform 'extra' bag is mentioned but not documented in terms of supported filter keys. For a search tool, more detail about filter syntax and pagination would be expected.

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. It explains that the 'extra' parameter is a freeform bag for filters (sequence, recipient, status, date range), which provides some meaning not captured by the schema. However, it does not clarify the expected format of 'extra' or the purpose of page/per_page. Partial compensation.

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') and the resource ('sent emailer messages'), and lists specific filter dimensions (sequence, recipient, status, date range) via the 'extra' bag. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like apollo_get_emailer_message_activities or apollo_search_sequences.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions filtering via 'extra' but does not explain when to use specific parameters (sequence_ids, contact_ids) versus the freeform bag. There is no mention of prerequisites or cases where other tools might be more appropriate.

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