Search Proton messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a specific behavioral guarantee, "without marking messages as read," which goes beyond the generic annotation and is directly relevant to user expectations.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core verb, resource, and a key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values do not need describing, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the folder parameter's meaning is not explained—whether search is scoped to a single folder or searches all folders—which leaves some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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, but it provides no information about the query, limit, or folder parameters. The phrase "message text" hints at what query targets, but folder scope and limit semantics are entirely absent, leaving the agent to rely only on schema defaults.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Search message text" clearly identifies the operation and target. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it does not mark messages as read, distinguishing it from read_message.

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 implies when to use the tool—searching message content when read side-effects are undesirable—but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, so it does not quite reach a 5.

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