oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'search' and specifies filtering capabilities, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The mention of 'limit' hints at result bounding, but behavioral traits are incomplete.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters, each with a brief explanation. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function or parameter usage, with no redundant or vague language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete for a search operation. It covers all parameters thoroughly and states the purpose clearly. The output schema existence means return values needn't be explained, but behavioral aspects like error handling or performance are omitted, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 by detailing all 6 parameters with clear semantics. It explains what each parameter filters (e.g., 'query' searches subject, body snippet, and sender; 'is_medical' filters to medical emails) and provides format hints (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD' for dates), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('stored email entries'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on email search rather than documents, conversations, or other entities. It explicitly lists the searchable fields (text, date, sender, medical relevance), making the scope 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_documents' or 'search_conversations', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or data availability. It lacks context about typical use cases or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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