gmail_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add value by explaining Gmail query syntax and empty-query behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it describe pagination or response format beyond what the output schema presumably covers. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Search Gmail messages') followed by illustrative query examples and empty-query behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters) and has an output schema, so return values are handled externally. The description provides essential query syntax and the empty-query default, making it adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. However, a brief mention of max_results or result size limits would have made it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description partially compensates by illustrating valid query formats (e.g., 'is:unread', 'from:user@example.com'). However, max_results is not mentioned in the description, leaving its purpose and constraints to be inferred from the default value and parameter name. The query parameter is well-covered, but max_results is not.

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 tool's function with 'Search Gmail messages' and provides concrete Gmail query syntax examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_read_message or gmail_send. The verb 'search' and resource 'Gmail messages' are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool by demonstrating query types and noting that an empty query returns recent messages. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., gmail_read_message) or state when not to use it, missing an explicit exclusion clause.

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