email_search

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

No annotations provided, and description only states what it does (search and return IDs/snippets). Does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, error handling, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond basic functionality.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then output, then alternative tool. Very concise and well-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?

Covers purpose, output, and a key alternative. Schema covers parameter details. Could mention pagination behavior, but the page_token parameter description covers that. Adequate for a search tool without output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no new meaning beyond confirming 'Gmail query syntax' which is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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?

Clearly states it searches Gmail messages using Gmail query syntax and returns message IDs and snippets. Distinguishes from sibling email_read which retrieves full content.

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?

Explicitly directs to use email_read for full content, providing a clear alternative. Does not cover other usage scenarios but is sufficient for basic decision-making.

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