hec_search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or involves pagination (despite a scrollId parameter). There is no mention of rate limits, permissions, or what happens to results. The lack of behavioral context leaves the agent guessing.

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 concise at three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the main purpose, making it front-loaded. Each sentence adds useful information (search scope, filter categories, advanced filter operators). There is no redundancy or fluff, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context: it does not mention that startDate and saas are required, that pagination exists via scrollId, or what the response format is. It also omits the optional saasEntity filter. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage boundaries.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions filtering by 'sender, recipient, subject, SaaS platform, and date range,' which aligns with schema fields, but does not elaborate on how to use the filters array or provide examples. It does not compensate for any gaps.

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 clearly states the action: 'Search email and SaaS entities in Checkpoint Harmony Email.' It uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (email and SaaS entities), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hec_get_email (retrieve single) and hec_query_events (query events). The mention of filters further narrows its purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain why one would choose hec_search_emails over hec_get_email or hec_query_events. The filter hints are implicit usage, but no exclusions or context for decision-making are given.

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