search

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It warns that fields marked 'untrusted-email-body' are untrusted data, advises reasoning without execution, and notes the response safety block. Ordering (most-relevant + newest first) and result detail ('each hit says where it matched') are also disclosed.

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 with two clear functional sentences plus a safety paragraph. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, though the safety context could be integrated more tightly.

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?

For a search tool with untrusted data and safety concerns, the description covers the core functionality, result characteristics, and critical safety warnings. It lacks output schema details, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Overall, it adequately prepares an agent for correct invocation.

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 low (43%), but the description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. The safety context around 'messages' is valuable but not about parameter format or constraints. The schema descriptions partially cover the missing portion, leaving a gap.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'specific message in a batch', with explicit filtering dimensions (sender, subject, content). It distinguishes from siblings like 'triage' and 'draft_reply' by focusing on search.

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 implies usage for finding messages by sender/subject/content and notes ordering. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling list provides context, and the purpose is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke.

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