mail_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: ranking is semantic-embedding based rather than keyword based, which explains result relevance. It omits other behaviors such as default limits, pagination, return format, and any permission or rate constraints, so gaps remain.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences with the core purpose stated first. Efficient overall, though the final sentence enumerating filters overlaps with structured schema fields and mildly duplicates information.

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 11-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and filter scope but says nothing about what results look like, default/vs-max limits, or how relevance scores are returned. Adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's list of filter categories (sender, recipient, attachments, mailbox, sent/received, flagged) largely restates what the schema already provides and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond it.

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 (search) and resource (emails) plus the distinguishing mechanism (semantic AI embeddings, 'by meaning, not just keywords'). This implicitly separates it from keyword-based siblings, but it never names the near-duplicate tools it competes with (mail_find, smart_search, messages_search), so an agent must still infer which one to pick.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never references the alternative search tools in the sibling list. There is no stated condition that would route an agent here rather than to mail_find or smart_search.

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