gmail_search

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the mutability profile, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, return format, or default parameter handling. It adds no value beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too generic and under-specific; it does not earn its place beyond the tool name.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to describe the return value, pagination, or defaults, leaving the agent to infer from the schema. The annotations and schema compensate somewhat, but the description is not complete.

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 describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'query parameters' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (search) and resource (emails in Gmail), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_search and gmail_get. However, it doesn't specify the full scope of search or the meaning of 'query parameters,' though the schema clarifies this.

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 such as gmail_get for retrieving a specific email or gmail_listLabels for listing labels. The description does not include any exclusions or context for selection.

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