search_emails

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

No annotations and no description of side effects, read-only status, or potential errors. The tool could have side effects or be read-only, but nothing is disclosed, leaving the agent without critical behavioral 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, short sentence, which is economical but sacrifices necessary detail. It is not verbose, but the brevity results in a lack of substantive information, making it average in conciseness.

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 and no description of return format, pagination, or error behavior. The description is too sparse to prepare an agent for the tool's complete behavior, making it incomplete in context.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters (query, limit, name) with brief descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search by content' states a verb and resource, but it does not clarify what kind of search (e.g., exact match, partial, subject/body) and is nearly indistinguishable from the sibling tool 'semantic_search_emails', which also searches by content. This ambiguity fails to give an agent a clear purpose.

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 tool versus alternatives like 'semantic_search_emails' or 'get_all_emails'. The agent is left to guess which search method is appropriate, providing no usage context.

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