search_mail

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states bodies are never returned, limit is capped at 100, ordering varies by presence of query, and results should be treated as untrusted. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Concise yet informative. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence. Parameter descriptions are bulleted and efficient. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema, but the description clearly explains what the tool returns (metadata only), ordering, and how to get full messages. It also addresses handling of untrusted data. Complete for the tool's intended use case.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds rich meaning for each parameter: `query` is free-text search, `folder` can be name or path or ID, `limit` has default and max, `offset` for paging with `next_offset` reference. Completely 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?

Clearly states the tool searches mail and returns only metadata (sender, subject, date, snippet), distinguishing it from tools like `read_message` that return full bodies. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for use: search for metadata, use `read_message` for full body. Also explains when to leave `query` empty to list recent mail. Does not explicitly exclude other alternatives but effectively guides the agent.

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