Find Emails

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: newest-first ordering, bodies omitted, pagination via total/has_more and both continuations, and unusual search behavior (total reports 0, no cursor). This adds significant context not available from annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail, and the structure flows logically from function to limitations to pagination specifics.

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 7 parameters and output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: listing vs search, result contents, pagination mechanics, and exceptions. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how pagination parameters work in context ('take either for the next page') and clarifying that search lacks next_cursor, which goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 lists emails in a folder or searches the whole mailbox by text. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_email and get_thread by explicitly noting bodies are excluded and pointing to get_email for full content.

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 for when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'full body, attachment ids and links come from get_email' and mentions 'for that use get_thread' in the schema. It also clarifies the two modes (folder listing vs search) and relevant pagination behavior.

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