emails_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'specific filters' which hints at filtering capabilities, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at 4 words with no wasted text. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested structures, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what properties can be filtered/sorted, how filterGroups work, what 'after' means, or what the tool returns. For a search tool with rich filtering capabilities, this minimal description leaves the agent guessing.

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%, so all 5 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'specific filters' which partially relates to the 'filterGroups' parameter but doesn't explain any parameters' purposes, formats, or relationships. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Search emails with specific filters' states the verb (search) and resource (emails) but is vague about scope and capabilities. It doesn't specify what kind of search this is (full-text, property-based, etc.) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'emails_list'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'emails_list' and 'emails_search' existing, the description doesn't indicate whether this is for complex filtering versus simple listing, or any prerequisites for usage. The agent receives no contextual decision-making help.

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