search

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: accent- and case-insensitive matching, all-words-must-match semantics, quoted exact-phrase behavior, relevance-then-recency ordering, and the fact that nothing gets marked read. That is exactly the kind of match/ordering contract an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 behavioral contract comes first in two tight sentences, followed by a compact Args list with no filler. Every line carries either matching semantics or parameter constraints.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; combined with the documented parameters and match/ordering semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 must carry the load and it does: query accepts words or a quoted phrase, topic/sender are optional single-value limiters, sender's permitted values are enumerated, and limit is bounded to 1-100 with a default visible in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the whole room history') plus the matching semantics, which instantly separates it from passive readers like inbox/read. The scope word 'whole' and 'nothing is marked read' make clear it is a non-mutating cross-history lookup.

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 filtering options (topic, sender) imply how to narrow a search, but the description never says when to prefer this over siblings such as inbox, read, or summary, nor when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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