搜索 QQ 邮箱

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so '不改变邮件状态' largely restates structured data rather than adding new behavior. The one genuinely additive detail is the '当前已授权' scoping, which hints at the auth boundary; return format and pagination behavior remain undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by scope dimensions and a safety clause. No filler, nothing buried.

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 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is workable because annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers types. However, it does not address result ordering, the limit default/cap, or the INBOX default, leaving real gaps an agent would want when composing a 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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters including date patterns and unread semantics. The description mirrors the filter list but adds no syntax, default-value, or interplay detail, and omits mailbox and limit entirely — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (搜索) and resource (QQ 邮件) with the searchable dimensions enumerated (关键词、发件人、主题、日期、未读状态). It clearly differentiates a filtered search from qq_mail_read, but never names siblings like qq_mail_list_unread, which covers overlapping unread filtering.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of filter dimensions, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of qq_mail_list_unread as the narrower alternative for unread-only queries. An agent must infer routing from the sibling names.

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