search_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether it supports pagination, rate limits, or what the output format is. The description is too brief to inform an agent of expected behavior beyond the basic 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or whether it retrieves full messages or just metadata. An agent would lack critical operational context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely echoes the concept of Gmail search syntax already present in the query parameter description. No additional context is provided for 'maxResults'.

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 'Search emails using Gmail search syntax' clearly identifies the tool's function as searching emails with a specific syntax. The verb 'Search' is appropriate and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_emails' or 'get_email', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate its capabilities.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_emails' or 'search_emails' (if there are multiple search tools). No context is given about prerequisites or conditions that favor this tool.

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