Nachrichten suchen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are deduplicated via message id, that attachment names appear as ATT{...}, and flags as ⚑. It also reveals the behavioral note about returning everything if no filters are given — a genuine edge-case behavior worth disclosing. This is solid behavioral context for a read-only search operation.

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 efficient — roughly three sentences covering purpose, output format markers, filter behavior, and deduplication. It front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence carries meaningful content with no wasted words. Slightly longer than the ideal two-sentence description but earns its length.

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 read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what's searched, what's returned (with marker notation), filter semantics, and deduplication. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe result ordering or pagination/limits, but for a list-returning search tool this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds semantics that complement the schema: it explains ATT{...} output naming and deduplication, and clarifies the filter interplay (that vendors and flaggedOnly are the two filter paths). The description doesn't need to re-explain each parameter since the schema already does so thoroughly at 100% coverage.

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 searches messages in a time window, lists hits with attachment names (ATT{...}) and flag markers (⚑). It explicitly distinguishes what it does — filtering by sender keywords and/or flagged messages, deduplicating by message id. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope that differentiates from the sibling tools (save_attachment, get_message_body, flag_message, list_mailboxes), which all perform clearly different functions.

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 gives clear usage context: it explains that it filters by sender keywords and/or flagged-only messages, and explicitly states 'ohne einen der beiden Filter käme alles zurück' (without either filter, everything would be returned). This helps the agent know when filtering is appropriate. However, it doesn't name explicit alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool in favor of a sibling, though the sibling differentiation is reasonably clear from names.

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