emails_search

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 'search' and 'filters' but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens on errors. For a search tool with complex parameters, 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic statement, though it lacks depth. Every word earns its place, but it's under-specified rather than concise.

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 (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search behavior, return format, error handling, or parameter usage, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only vaguely mentions 'specific filters' without explaining the 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their semantics. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Search emails with specific filters' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('emails'), but it's vague about what 'specific filters' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling email tools like emails_list or other search tools (e.g., calls_search, meetings_search), missing specificity about filtering capabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emails_list or other search tools (e.g., calls_search). The description implies filtering but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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