search_emails

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

Description claims search by keyword, sender, or date range, but input schema has zero parameters, making the tool unusable as described. No annotations exist to compensate. This is a critical contradiction between description and schema.

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 with no waste, but overly brief given the tool's complexity and contradictory nature.

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?

Missing essential information: parameters are described but not defined, no output schema. Incomplete to enable correct usage.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% with zero parameters, the description adds meaning by listing filter types. However, these filters do not exist in the schema, so the description is misleading. Baseline for zero params is 4, but mismatch reduces 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 searches emails and mentions common filters (keyword, sender, date range), distinguishing it from 'list_emails' which likely returns all emails. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'outlook_search_emails'.

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 on when to use search vs. other email tools (e.g., list_emails, read_email). Lacks context for selection among siblings.

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