search_emails

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: IDs are IMAP UIDs stable within UIDVALIDITY, folder name encoding details, query syntax examples, and return type. This exceeds expectations for an unannotated tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter details in bullet-like format. It is slightly verbose but all information is useful and not redundant.

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 the tool's complexity (4 params, query string nuances, IMAP specifics), the description covers all necessary context: return type, ID stability, folder encoding, pagination, and query examples. An output schema exists, but the description adds value beyond it.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains all four parameters: folder (default, name formats, encoding), query (with multiple examples), limit (default), and offset (default, pagination). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Search emails in a folder.' and specifies the returned data (list of email summaries with id, subject, from, date). It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings, none of which are search tools.

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 provides context for using the 'folder' parameter (e.g., 'Use list_folders() to see available folders') and gives query examples. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements, but as the only search tool, guidance is sufficient.

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