sc_mail_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered or paginated, or any auth constraints. 'Status endpoint' is vague and arguably misleading for a search tool.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it is not bloated, but the phrase 'Alpha mail status endpoint' is filler that occupies the front-loaded position where useful routing information should be. Efficient in length, poor in information density.

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 search tool sitting among several mail siblings with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum explain how search differs from list, what the query matches, and what results look like.

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% with only two simple parameters (query, limit), so the schema already documents everything needed. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-semantics detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States the verb (searching) and resource (mail), so the general purpose is recoverable. However, the phrase 'Alpha mail status endpoint' is muddled and adds no meaning, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling sc_mail_list, which could plausibly be mistaken for the same capability.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus sc_mail_list or sc_mail_read, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what a search query should look like. The agent is left to guess the routing.

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