search_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 discloses the use of KQL $search and $filter and the workaround, which is useful implementation context. However, it does not describe the return format, ordering, pagination, or side effects (though a search is likely read-only), leaving some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a relevant implementation note. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

For an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and mechanism but omits details about result shape, ordering, or the practical impact of the $search/$orderBy incompatibility. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps for a fully informed selection.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning by grouping parameters into text queries (from, subject, body) and date ranges, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the tool as 'Search emails using Microsoft Graph API' and specifies the two main behaviors: KQL $search for text queries and $filter for date ranges. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_folders and get_sent_items, and the mention of the incompatibility workaround adds a unique, specific 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when needing text-based or date-filtered email searches. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it implies this is the appropriate choice for search functionality, and the workaround note suggests it is preferred over other implementations.

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