search_emails

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'search emails with optional text query', omitting crucial details like searched fields (subject, body, attachments), case sensitivity, pagination behavior, default sorting, or scope (e.g., all mailboxes vs current folder).

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?

Very concise single sentence, but at the cost of completeness. It is front-loaded, but the sacrifice of behavioral detail makes it less useful for an agent. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified.

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 tool with no output schema and 2 parameters, the description should provide more context about search behavior. It does not explain what is searched, how results are returned, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'search_in_folder'. An agent likely will not have enough information to select or invoke it correctly.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond 'optional text query', which is already implied by the schema. No additional meaning about search semantics or usage.

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?

Clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'emails'. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_folder_emails' or 'search_in_folder', lacking specificity on scope (e.g., all mailboxes vs specific folders).

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 alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with other email retrieval tools. The optional query hint is implicit but insufficient.

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