search_email_content

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It discloses performance characteristics (slower), default behaviors (searches both body and subject by default), and provides parameters like max_results and max_content_length that control output. It does not mention authorization or error handling, which are minor gaps.

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 begins with a clear one-sentence summary, then provides a structured parameter list. However, it includes a 'User Preferences' line that appears extraneous and slightly detracts 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 2 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics and core behavior. It could be enhanced with return format details, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

The description includes a detailed Args list explaining each parameter and its default value, compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage. This provides essential meaning beyond the schema's property names, such as clarifying that 'search_subject' and 'search_body' are both true by default.

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 the tool searches email body and optionally subject, and distinguishes itself from subject-only searches by noting it is slower but finds more relevant results. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'search_emails' and 'search_emails_advanced'.

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 warns that this tool is slower than subject-only searches, implying that for faster results, users should use an alternative. However, it does not explicitly name which sibling tool to use, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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