ClawAIMail

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 mentions the default inbox behavior, which is useful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as search scope (e.g., across all emails or limited), permissions required, rate limits, or what the response includes (e.g., email metadata or full content). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly address the tool's function and a key parameter behavior. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted verbiage or 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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, field matching), result format, pagination, or error handling. Without structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context for effective use.

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 both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates that inbox_id is optional and uses the default inbox, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like search syntax examples or query format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search emails by keyword.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('emails'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_messages' or 'my_email' that might also retrieve email data. The description is specific about the search functionality but lacks sibling distinction.

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 some usage context: 'If inbox_id is omitted, uses the default inbox.' This implies when to include or omit the parameter, but doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_messages' or 'my_email.' The guidance is limited to parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

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