zoho_search_emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious operational behavior: the special "newMails" key, inclspamtrash, and groupResult, which an agent could not derive from the annotations or schema. It omits any statement about result ordering or pagination behavior, keeping it out of the top band.

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 purpose and the joiner rule are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the dense parameter inventory is a legitimate syntax reference rather than filler. The example line is well placed at the end as a concrete anchor, though the run-on parameter enumeration is hard to scan.

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 no output schema, the description should say more about what a result looks like, and pagination isn't addressed. It compensates well on the query-construction side, but result shape and the limit/start interplay remain unspecified for a tool whose whole job is returning a filtered set.

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 only 40%, so the description has to carry weight, and it does: it fully specifies the required searchKey grammar, the AND/OR joiners, every supported key, date format, and a worked example. The remaining parameters (limit, start, includeto) are left undescribed in both the schema and the description, which prevents a 5.

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+resource ("Search emails") and immediately names the query language (Zoho search syntax), which distinguishes it from sibling list/read tools like zoho_list_emails and zoho_get_email_content. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with zoho_list_emails, so an agent must infer the boundary between searching and listing.

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 only implied through the syntax reference and the example query; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over zoho_list_emails or how to fall back when the search syntax is unknown. The example ("subject:Invoice::sender:billing@acme.com::has:attachment") is helpful but is illustrative rather than prescriptive.

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