search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals read-only nature in connected mode, sandbox being free in-memory, and safety warnings about untrusted email body data. It also mentions a 'safety' block in responses. Missing details like rate limits or auth details, but sufficient for the tool.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then explains modes and safety. It is somewhat lengthy but every part adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but well-structured.

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 complexity (9 params, two modes, safety concerns) and no output schema, the description does well explaining modes, untrusted data handling, and response safety block. It could mention response format for no results, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 67% (6 of 9 params described). The description adds semantics for 'messages' (explaining untrusted data and modes) and mentions safety. However, some parameters like 'focus', 'agentId', and 'token' have no description in either schema or description, leaving gaps.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Find a specific message by sender / subject / content' with ranking and match highlighting. It distinguishes from siblings like read_email by explicitly describing search behavior and two modes.

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 explicitly explains two modes (sandbox vs connected) and when to use each, including prerequisites (API key for connected mode). It also provides safety guidance for untrusted data. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools for when to use search over triage or list_commitments.

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