emails_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional content/attachments retrieval, which adds context, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, how filters combine, or pagination behavior. It is adequate for a search tool but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concrete use cases. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 (6 params, nested filters) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage scenarios. However, it does not mention the return format or default behavior (e.g., limit), relying on the schema for those details. This is sufficient but leaves room for improvement.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond reiterating the existence of filters and optional content/attachments. The phrase 'flexible filters' maps to the filters object, but the schema already details each filter field.

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 tool's function: 'Search for emails in your inbox with flexible filters.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like email_send and email_respond, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to find specific emails, check for unread messages, or browse your inbox.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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