search_all_accounts

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 that results are sorted by date (newest first), that only INBOX mailboxes are searched, and that the result includes account names. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 brief introductory sentence, a parameter list, and a return note. However, the inclusion of 'User Preferences' is extraneous and not relevant to tool selection or invocation, slightly detracting from conciseness.

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 description covers the tool's core behavior (cross-account search, inbox-only, sorted results) and all parameters. It mentions the output format implicitly. With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return structure. It is complete enough for typical use, though it lacks error handling or rate limit notes.

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 0%, and the description compensates excellently with a detailed 'Args' section that explains each parameter's purpose, default values, and special values (e.g., '0 = all time' for days_back). This is a textbook example of parameter documentation.

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 across ALL email accounts, uses the verb 'search', and specifies the resource 'all email accounts'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing cross-account search and limiting to INBOX, which sets it apart from single-account search tools like search_emails.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('search across ALL email accounts at once') and notes a key constraint ('Only searches INBOX mailboxes'). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the emphasis on 'all accounts' provides sufficient guidance.

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