search_emails

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral context such as performance, rate limits, authentication, or result handling. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal additional value.

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 a single sentence, 12 words, front-loading the key action and filter dimensions. Every word is functional, and it avoids redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return format, pagination (limit behavior), error handling, or that results are email objects. The openWorldHint annotation suggests variable results, but description adds no clarity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes filter types but does not add semantics beyond the schema (e.g., date format details, how flags interact). No extra value provided.

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 it is a search tool for emails with advanced filters, specifying the filter dimensions (from, to, subject, dates, flags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_emails (list all) and get_email_by_id (single email) by indicating it offers filtered searching.

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 complex filtering but does not explicitly contrast with simpler alternatives like get_emails. No guidance on when not to use or when to prefer other tools.

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