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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: syncing starts from the next sync only, past mail is never read, the 'Tommo work' switch is off by default, and re-adding a stopped mailbox resumes while keeping its switch. This is exactly the behavior an agent needs before calling a stateful connect operation.

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?

Purpose, prerequisite, alternative, and default-state effects are front-loaded across three sentences, and every sentence carries distinct information. It is somewhat dense in phrasing ('the records of the people and deals Tommos holds'), which keeps it from a 5.

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 one-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, effect timing, data-history policy, default switch state, alternative path, and re-add semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 100% and the single 'address' field is already documented with a concrete example (sales@yourcompany.com), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description implies the address belongs to the company's delegated Workspace but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 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 and resource ('Add a mailbox of the company's Google Workspace to what this workspace reads') and immediately scopes it to the company-wide delegated case, which distinguishes it from the sibling it is not (link_to_connect_your_mailbox). An agent can tell these two apart without opening either 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?

Gives the explicit prerequisite ('when the Workspace's admin has granted domain-wide delegation') and names the alternative path plus its condition ('A person can instead connect their own mailbox by signing in'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered, not inferred.

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