advanced_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. However, it only enumerates search criteria already present in the schema and adds no information about side effects, authorization, return format, pagination, or mailbox scope. It is not misleading but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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?

Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and readable.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling search tools, the description is under-specified. It doesn't clarify default behavior (limit, mailbox), result format, or when to prefer it over search_emails. However, the schema covers parameter details, making the description minimally viable.

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 100%, with each parameter documented. The description merely summarizes the criteria as 'date range, size, flags' without adding new syntax or constraints, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies this as an advanced email search tool with multiple filter criteria. The verb 'search' and resource 'email' are explicit, and listing criteria (from, to, subject, body, date range, size, flags) distinguishes it from basic search tools, though without naming sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus simpler alternatives like search_emails or fetch_emails. The word 'advanced' implies a distinction, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are given.

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