search_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly specifies the return format (list of metadata dicts with uid, subject, from, date, flags), which adds value. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or any limitations (e.g., result caps, performance), leaving some transparency gaps.

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 Args and Returns sections, each line earning its place. It is concise, avoiding fluff, and front-loads the core purpose before providing parameter and return details. The format is scannable and efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameter semantics, and return value, which is substantial for a search/filter tool. The main omission is usage context relative to sibling tools, but this is more of a usage guideline gap. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains all six parameters (mailbox, from_addr, subject, since, before, unseen) with concrete semantics, including format examples for dates and the tri-state unseen behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 states 'Sök e-post med filter' (Search email with filters), which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. It lists relevant filter parameters, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_emails or get_email_headers, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 alternatives such as list_emails or get_email_headers. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools, leaving the usage context entirely up to the agent's inference.

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