search_email_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'searches' (implied read-only) and 'mocked' (test environment), but does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, side effects, or any safety details. This is a significant gap for a tool operating on a store.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the action and then a helpful example that justifies the tool's existence.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned. It does not mention return values, result caps, or any limitations. Example usage helps, but completeness is only adequate.

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 67% (2 of 3 params described). The description adds domain context (external beneficiary, shipped work) that clarifies query terms, but does not fully explain how params interact or what to_domain_hint does beyond the schema example.

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 it searches a mocked inbox/sent-items store for emails relevant to a commitment, with a concrete example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_slack_evidence by focusing on email evidence, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 example (mail sent to an external beneficiary) provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or list alternatives, but the use case is well-illustrated.

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