smart_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that source selection is automatic and that results are grouped by time when multiple sources match, which is real behavioral context. However it says nothing about permissions, how sources are chosen, ordering, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then mechanism, then routing guidance. No filler or repetition, though "Intelligent" is slightly marketing-flavored rather than informative.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers what comes back (results grouped by time across matched sources) and when to reach for it. Adequate for a read-only search tool; missing only edge behavior such as empty results or source-selection failure.

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 the schema already documents query, limit and synthesize with examples, giving a baseline of 3. The description's time-grouping note loosely reinforces synthesize but adds no syntax or format 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 set (Mail, Messages, Calendar) with the notable differentiator that it auto-selects sources. Distinguishes itself from the many single-source siblings like mail_search/messages_search/calendar_search by scope, though it never names them.

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?

"Use this for complex queries that might span multiple data sources" gives an explicit when-to-use condition that implicitly excludes simple single-source lookups. It stops short of naming the alternative single-source tools for the non-matching case.

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