search_mail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it searches all accounts at once, includes body text, matches subject/sender/recipients/body, and returns numeric message IDs for downstream tools. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: query syntax, empty-query behavior, time filter, and return-value usage. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core search behavior and downstream ID usage, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, it omits important context for a 10-parameter tool: how limit/offset pagination works, what the default days=0 means, and how the sender/account/mailbox/filter parameters interact with query.

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 the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains query and days well, but the other eight parameters (limit, offset, sender, account, mailbox, unread_only, flagged_only, with_attachments) receive no explanation beyond their schema names, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search mail across every account at once, including message bodies.' It clearly distinguishes search_mail from sibling retrieval tools like get_message and get_thread by emphasizing cross-account, body-inclusive search and by stating it returns IDs for use with those tools.

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 practical usage guidance: query semantics, exact-phrase quoting, empty-query browsing, and the days=7 time filter. It implies the workflow of searching first then using get_message/get_thread/prepare_reply/prepare_forward, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for other mail operations.

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