sch_search_mail

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 useful operational detail — result ids are IMAP UIDs, folder defaults to INBOX, and account defaults to the 'default' entry in credentials.json — but never states that this is a read-only operation, nor addresses rate limits, permissions, or result ordering/pagination.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; each parameter line is a single clause with no waste. The docstring-style layout is slightly verbose relative to a prose summary but remains tight and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still usefully clarifies that ids are IMAP UIDs. Combined with the full parameter documentation and default-resolution rules, it covers what an agent needs, though it omits read-only/behavioral guarantees.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must do all the work, and it does: every one of the six parameters is documented with meaning and defaults, including the enumerated field values ('subject','from','body','all') that the schema lacks entirely, the YYYY-MM-DD date format for 'since', and the credentials.json account-key semantics.

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 and resource ('Search messages') and the searchable fields (subject, sender, body), and differentiates itself from siblings by noting result ids are IMAP UIDs identical to what sch_list_mail returns. An agent can distinguish this from sch_list_mail and sch_get_mail without opening any schema.

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 tool's purpose implies its use case (keyword lookup vs listing), and the UID note hints at how it relates to sch_list_mail, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for retrieval-by-id (sch_get_mail). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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