search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact return fields, newest-first ordering, and the INBOX default — valuable because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what happens when results exceed the limit.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste: the operation and its filter axes come first, then the return shape and ordering. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 9-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the important context: default folder, date format, return fields, and sort order. The one remaining gap is how to page past the 100-message ceiling, which an agent would need to know for broad queries.

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 every parameter is already documented with its semantics and defaults. The description restates the filter set and date format but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (a folder of mail) plus the exact filter axes and returned fields. It implicitly separates itself from read_message by returning only headers/metadata (uid, date, from, subject, size, has_attachments) rather than bodies, but it never names the sibling it is not, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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: search mail in a folder, defaulting to INBOX, with since/before in YYYY-MM-DD. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus read_message, list_folders, or read_attachment, and no guidance on how to retrieve more than the 100-result cap.

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