Search emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that with "Results are newest first," but says nothing about result size limits, pagination, or what happens when no filters are supplied (presumably a full folder dump).

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The capability statement comes first and the ordering guarantee second, which is exactly the front-loading an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what a hit looks like; it states ordering but not the fields returned or whether ids are included for follow-up calls like read_email or move_emails. For a 12-parameter search tool this leaves a meaningful gap, though the fully documented schema compensates for the input side.

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 100%, with defaults, bounds and examples ("today", "30d", "2026-10-01") all documented in the schema itself. The description only re-lists the filter categories, adding no semantics beyond what the schema already carries, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Searches one mailbox folder") plus the exact filter dimensions (sender, recipient, subject, body text, date range, read status) and the result ordering. The scope qualifier "one mailbox folder" usefully distinguishes it from a global search, but no sibling tool (check_inbox, read_email) is named for contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated filter dimensions and the folder scoping, so an agent can infer this is the tool for criteria-based retrieval within a folder. However, there is no explicit "use this instead of check_inbox/read_email when…" guidance and no statement of when not to use it.

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