yahoo_search_mail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that result IDs are IMAP UIDs matching yahoo_list_mail's output, which is context beyond the schema. But it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then a useful return-ID note, then a well-structured Args list. Every item is necessary given the 0% schema description coverage, and there is no redundant filler.

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 a six-parameter search tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers purpose, all input semantics, defaults, and the key return-value identifier. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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, and it does so thoroughly. Every one of the six parameters is documented with meaning, allowed values or formats, and defaults: query is case-insensitive, folder defaults to INBOX, field accepts subject/from/body/all, since uses YYYY-MM-DD, top defaults to 20, and account is an accounts.json key.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search messages by keyword in subject, sender, or body.' It also notes that result IDs are IMAP UIDs matching yahoo_list_mail, which aids cross-referencing. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like yahoo_list_mail or yahoo_get_mail beyond the implicit search-vs-list difference.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yahoo_list_mail or yahoo_get_mail. The description only states the operation and its arguments, leaving the agent to infer that this is the keyword-search tool.

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