gold_gmail_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that without auth it returns an 'honest config_needed stub' and that no data is invented, which is valuable anti-hallucination guidance. It does not cover result structure or error behavior beyond auth, preventing a 5.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the operation, then give a query example, then state the auth-failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 description covers auth failure behavior well, but with no output schema it leaves the success return format, pagination, and body-snippet semantics open to inference. The low complexity of three optional parameters prevents this from being a larger gap, but it is still a clear omission.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a concrete Gmail query example ('newer_than:7d seller/order/refund') that demonstrates operator usage for the query parameter. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Gmail query' description, though max_results and include_body receive no extra semantic guidance.

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 identifies the operation as 'Gmail search' with a specific resource (Gmail) and an example query format. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like gold_setup_check and gold_sheets_append by its search focus, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 implies when to use the tool through 'Gmail search' and the query example, and the BYOK OAuth context suggests an authentication prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some usage inference to the agent.

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