search_all_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose behaviors like result ordering, rate limits, whether the query syntax differs per account (though the schema hints at this), or what happens if a query is invalid for a particular provider. The description is quite thin on behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential search purpose and scope. Nothing to trim.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool searches across multiple providers (Gmail/Outlook per the query syntax note), which introduces complexity around result merging, ordering, and provider-specific limitations. The description doesn't address cross-provider behavior or how results are aggregated. An output schema helps with return format, but multi-provider search is more complex than a single filtered list.

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%, with both query and limit_per_account documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents both parameters.

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 the verb (search) and resource (emails) and specifies scope ('ALL authorized accounts'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the cross-account search scope, which separates it from account-specific email tools like get_emails_from_sender and get_inbox.

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 it searches across all accounts but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_all_unread_emails, get_inbox, or per-sender searches. There's no when-not-to-use guidance, but 'across ALL authorized accounts' provides reasonable context for a broad search scenario.

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