email_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety behavior is covered by structured data. Beyond that, the description adds nothing about what query syntax is supported, whether results are paginated, or how limit/folder affect the result set.

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 single sentence is short but not informative — it front-loads a vague scope instead of actionable detail. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

With no output schema, 5 wholly undocumented parameters, and no explanation of search semantics or authentication, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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% for all 5 parameters, including an authentication-related 'password' parameter and a required 'query' parameter. The description does not mention any parameter, its format, or its role, leaving every parameter entirely undocumented.

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 states a verb (search) and resource (emails) but adds only 'in an inbox', which does not distinguish it from siblings such as email_read_inbox, email_get, or gmail_search. An agent cannot tell from this text what makes 'search' different from simply reading the inbox, or whose inbox is targeted.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (email_read_inbox, email_get, gmail_search), and no preconditions. The agent must infer everything about tool selection from the name alone.

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