search_conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the search runs locally and returns partial rather than complete history, which tells the agent how much to trust completeness. It still omits pagination/limit behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope constraint ('visible') and the limitation ('partial, not full message-history') both earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 6 undocumented parameters, two of them required, and no folder/account/limit guidance, the agent lacks what it needs to invoke this correctly beyond the bare scope caveat.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate. It says nothing about the account scoping, the folder enum (inbox/requests/other), the inbox_filter default, limit, or unread_first ordering.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('search the ... inbox') and sharpens the scope with two modifiers: 'visible' and 'locally'. This distinguishes it from get_inbox/get_conversation, though it does not name a sibling alternative outright.

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?

Usage is implied ('search the visible inbox') and there is a useful caveat that results are partial rather than full message-history, which hints at when not to rely on it. But it names no alternative tool and gives no condition for choosing this over get_inbox.

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