search_messages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (headers and UIDs, not bodies), but says nothing about matching semantics (IMAP TEXT covers headers/body, not just subject), result ordering, whether limit truncates silently, or the read-only nature of the call.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given four undocumented parameters.

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?

For a 4-parameter search tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is thin: scope (folder default, unseen filter), pagination via limit, and match semantics are all left unstated. Only the return shape and the query's plain-text nature are covered.

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 0% across 4 parameters. The description clarifies only the required 'query' parameter as plain text matching; folder, limit, and unseen_only are entirely undefined in both schema and description, leaving three of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (mailbox TEXT), plus what comes back ('matching headers and UIDs'). It is distinguishable from read_message, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling list_messages.

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 purpose implies when to reach for it (free-text lookup rather than enumerating or reading a message), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of list_messages as the alternative for unfiltered listing, and no note about folder scoping.

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