search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), error handling, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Search emails') and specifies key parameters without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), result format, and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with their types, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing searchable fields ('subject, from, or body text'), but it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how multiple fields combine) or semantics beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline score.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('emails'), and specifies searchable fields ('by subject, from, or body text'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_emails' or 'get_email', which might provide similar functionality without search parameters.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_emails' (for unfiltered listing) or 'get_email' (for retrieving a specific email by ID). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the search capability alone.

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