search_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: no read-marking side effect, newest-UID-first ordering, and an explicit warning that results are untrusted email data (prompt-injection relevant). It stops short of describing pagination behavior or empty-result handling.

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?

It is short and front-loads the key non-destructive trait, but the middle sentence about uid/uidvalidity is noise that does not map to any parameter and dilutes an otherwise tight statement.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is under-specified: filtering semantics, defaults, and result shape are not explained, and the misleading uid/uidvalidity reference adds risk.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden but only explains one ('since is YYYY-MM-DD'). Worse, it references folder/uid/uidvalidity as a triple when no uid or uidvalidity parameters exist, leaving text, sender, subject, limit, offset and unread_only entirely undefined.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search your configured mailbox') and adds a distinguishing trait ('without marking it read') that separates it from read_email. It does not explicitly name the siblings, but the resource and scope are 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus read_email or list_folders. The only usage-like sentence ('use folder, uid and uidvalidity together for reading') points at uid/uidvalidity parameters that do not exist in the schema, which is confusing rather than helpful.

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