search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It focuses on parameter semantics but omits critical behavior: it does not state that the tool is read-only (no side effects), nor does it mention pagination, ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 concise, using a bullet-like list of arguments. The opening sentence states the overall purpose efficiently. Minor improvement could be better structural formatting (e.g., grouping related filters).

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, all optional) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers filtering conditions. However, it lacks details on search scope (across folders?), KQL syntax specifics, case sensitivity, or date range support, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains all 7 parameters in Vietnamese, adding rich context: 'query' is a free KQL search with priority over others, 'folder' defaults to inbox, 'limit' ranges 1-50, and each filter's purpose is clearly stated.

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 'Tìm kiếm email với các điều kiện lọc' (Search emails with filtering conditions), identifying the tool's purpose. It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (emails), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_emails by highlighting filtering capabilities.

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 notes that the 'query' parameter (KQL) takes priority over other filters, providing some guidance on parameter prioritization. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_emails) or provide exclusions.

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