find_document_threads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor does it explain the effect of syncBefore (refreshing index from IMAP, which may be a write operation). The behavioral characteristics are unclear.

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 concise: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or the impact of syncBefore. For a search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it states 'by category' and 'without knowing exact sender/subject' but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what's already in the schema.

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 clearly states it finds email threads with important document attachments (invoices, contracts, travel, calendar). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_indexed_emails by specifying category-based search without needing exact sender or subject.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (locate attachment-heavy threads by category) and provides an alternative (search_indexed_emails with hasAttachment:true) for custom queries beyond built-in categories. This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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