search_all_folders

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses the performance cost ('slower'), the return shape (grouped by folder), and partial-failure handling ('folders that could not be searched'). It does not mention any connection/auth prerequisite, which siblings like connect_email suggest may exist.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: scope, sibling differentiation, return shape, and performance tradeoff, with the scope constraint front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, yet it usefully summarizes grouping and partial failures. The remaining gap is the absence of any prerequisite/auth or rate-limit context for a tool that fans out across every mailbox folder.

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 0% across 6 parameters with only titles, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. 'Same parameters as search_emails' is a useful cross-reference but forces the agent to open another tool's schema; it gives no format or semantics for since_date/before_date, body_or_subject, or how limit_per_folder interacts with the per-folder grouping.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search across ALL folders in the mailbox) and enumerates the folder scope (inbox, spam, trash, archive, custom). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_emails by noting it runs the search in every folder rather than one.

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?

'Same parameters as search_emails but runs the search in every folder' names the alternative and the condition that selects this one. 'Slower but thorough' conveys the cost/benefit tradeoff, though it stops short of an explicit 'use search_emails when you know the folder' exclusion.

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