Search emails

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

Beyond the read-only and open-world annotations, it discloses the exact fields returned for each match and the newest-first ordering. Listing snippet rather than body also helps set expectations that results are summaries, though no further operational behavior is described.

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 compact sentences front-load the operation and query syntax, then provide useful result and ordering details. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 simple search tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the combined definition supplies the invocation model, defaults, result bounds, returned fields, and ordering. Explicit sibling routing would improve selection guidance but is not essential to invoking the tool correctly.

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 both parameters already document their syntax, defaults, and limits. The description repeats the Gmail-syntax point but adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

“Search the mailbox with Gmail search syntax” gives a specific verb, resource, and query model. The operation is clearly a search rather than a single-item retrieval or draft mutation, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from the named siblings.

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 Gmail-syntax query context makes it clear that this tool is for finding matching messages. It does not explicitly direct agents to get_email for full message content or get_thread for conversation context, nor state other exclusions.

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