mail_search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return fields and basic search behavior, but lacks details on sorting behavior (though defaults are given), rate limits, or whether the search is paginated. The description is functional but not deeply transparent.

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 short introductory sentence followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is free of unnecessary text, making it easy to scan.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema (from context signals), the description covers all parameters with explanations and references a related tool for mailbox IDs. It lacks some behavioral context like pagination or error handling, but is sufficient for a standard search tool.

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 input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no descriptions in the schema itself. The description compensates fully by providing an Args section with one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'text: Full-text search query'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search emails with optional filters' and specifies returned fields (id, subject, from, date). It distinguishes the tool as a general search with filters, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mail_search_snippets or mail_get_recent_emails.

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?

Description provides implicit usage context by listing optional filters and a default limit of 20. It references sibling tool mail_list_mailboxes for the in_mailbox parameter, aiding correct invocation. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as mail_get_email or mail_get_recent_emails.

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