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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only restates the action of forwarding. It does not explain side effects (e.g., creating a sent copy, modifying the original), authentication requirements, or behavior with attachments. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear, and front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices valuable information for brevity.

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?

The description is highly incomplete given the tool's three parameters and lack of output schema. It does not explain expected return values, side effects, or when this tool is appropriate, leaving critical context 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter details. It does not explain the purpose of 'to', 'note', or 'messageId', leaving the agent to infer everything from the raw schema field names.

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 verb 'Forward' and the resource 'a Gmail email', indicating the tool's purpose for forwarding Gmail messages. It distinguishes from sibling forward_outlook_email by specifying the email provider, though it could be more detailed about the scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like forward_outlook_email, send_email, or reply_email. There are no usage examples, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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