search_emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that only metadata is returned and bodies require a separate get_email call, which is not implied by the annotations alone.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no filler, and earns its place by adding a key behavioral caveat about message bodies. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite strong annotations and an output schema, the tool has 9 optional parameters with no schema description coverage, and the description does not explain how those parameters should be used. This makes the overall tool description minimally viable but with clear gaps in parameter guidance and usage context.

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% with 9 parameters, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics (e.g., query, folder, daysBack, unreadOnly). The agent must rely entirely on the input schema, which provides types and defaults but no deeper meaning about how the parameters interact or should be used.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Outlook Web mail metadata'), and it distinguishes itself from get_email by noting that message bodies are opt-in via get_email. This clearly identifies both what the tool does and how it differs from a sibling tool.

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 a clear usage context: it searches metadata and points to get_email for message bodies, which is a useful alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use search_emails versus list_mail_folders or other search scenarios, so it's slightly below full explicit guidance.

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