search_emails

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

Annotations already provide a strong safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to cover those. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as whether only indexed archives are searched, how matching strategies behave, or what the result contains.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and it conveys the core function 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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits details about return shape, pagination defaults, matching strategy semantics, and how filters combine, so an agent would likely need to infer too much.

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%, and the description only generically references 'full-text search and structured filters' without explaining any of the 16 parameters. It gives little help for choosing or combining parameters like matchingStrategy, sources, searchIn, or date ranges.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search archived emails') and states the mechanism ('full-text search and structured filters'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_email or list_archived_emails_for_source, which are for single retrieval or source-based listing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only implies usage by stating what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when search_emails is the right choice.

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