search-emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description reinforces this and adds substantial behavioral detail: fallback logic for Outlook.com, default output fields, pagination, delta token usage, and output verbosity control. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured with a clear summary followed by mode details and notes. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value given the complexity. A slight improvement could be more concise formatting.

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 tool's complexity (20 params, 6 modes) and absence of an output schema, the description covers most aspects: all modes, fallbacks, default output, and output verbosity. Missing details like sorting order and pagination continuation (nextLink) are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description goes far beyond by explaining how parameters combine (e.g., OData filter, kqlQuery bypass), defaults (folder, count), and the delta token workflow. This adds significant semantic value for parameter selection.

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 starts by clearly stating the tool's purpose: to search, list, delta-sync, or thread-group emails. It distinguishes six distinct modes selected by parameters, which differentiates it from siblings like read-email (single email) and search-people.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode (e.g., no params for listing, query for search, deltaMode for incremental sync). It also warns about Outlook.com limitations and recommends structured filters for cleaner results. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like read-email.

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