Search Gmail for job-related email

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is read-only ('Does not modify anything') and requires prior Gmail authorization. This is significant for safety. It does not detail pagination/rate limits, but given the scope, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant information. Every clause adds value (scope, examples, safety, prerequisite).

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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and prerequisites but omits what the function returns (e.g., list of message metadata). The examples hint at matches, but not the return structure.

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%, so the schema fully describes parameters like company, position, query, max_results. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what is in the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states it is a 'Read-only search of the authorized Gmail account for messages related to a company (and optionally position/keywords)' and lists example content (recruiter replies, interview invites, rejections). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_gmail_message (which reads a specific message) and send_gmail_email (which writes) by explicitly noting read-only/no modification.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: searching for job-related emails in Gmail. States prerequisite 'Requires Gmail to be authorized first'. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but clearly implies this is the search tool versus other Gmail action tools.

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