gmail_audit_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: audit queries are deliberately not themselves logged to avoid recursion, and the log never contains message bodies or secrets — both useful trust signals for an agent reasoning about what it will and won't see.

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, no filler, with the core purpose and filter list front-loaded and the caveats (no recursion, no bodies/secrets) trailing as supporting detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should sketch the returned record shape (fields like tool_name, status, timestamp) and mention the max_results default/limit; it only hints at what's absent (no bodies/secrets). Directionally helpful but incomplete for an agent that needs to interpret results and page properly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by naming the three filter axes (tool_name, status, search). However, it doesn't explain what `search` actually matches against (tool names? free text?), the allowed status values, or that max_results exists with a default/cap, leaving real ambiguity.

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?

Specific verb (queries) plus specific resource (local JSONL audit log) and the filters it accepts. Nothing in the sibling list covers audit-log access, so an agent can immediately tell this is the telemetry-inspection tool rather than a Gmail mailbox tool.

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 the use case (inspecting tool-call history via tool_name/status/search filters) and clarifies it is read-only, but never states when an agent should reach for it versus other introspection paths, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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