search_emails

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions live IMAP filters and local post-processing but does not disclose potential limitations like required IMAP connectivity, rate limits, or performance characteristics. The description implicitly suggests this tool is slower by comparing to indexed search, but is not explicit.

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, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by usage guidance. Every sentence conveys essential information without redundancy.

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?

No output schema, so return format isn't described. With 14 parameters and dual-mode operation (IMAP + local filtering), the description covers high-level behavior and usage context. Lacks details on pagination, result ordering, or error conditions, but the sibling comparison and clear intent make it reasonably complete for an AI agent to decide when to invoke.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that some filters (label, threadId, attachmentName) are applied locally after IMAP fetch, which is not evident from schema descriptions alone. This provides behavioral context beyond parameter names.

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?

Explicitly states 'Search emails via live IMAP filters with optional local post-processing for attachments and labels' – a specific verb-resource pair with clear mechanism. Distinguishes from sibling search_indexed_emails by mentioning real-time results and index availability.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('need real-time results or must search messages not yet in the local index') and when-not-to-use ('prefer search_indexed_emails when the index is populated') along with rationale (speed, IMAP availability).

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