gmail_search

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

No annotations present, so description covers all behavioral traits: returns specific fields (id, from, subject, date, snippet), date range meanings (after=on/after, before=before day), and default behavior with no filters. Mentions max_results indirectly via default, but does not disclose rate limits or pagination.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by filtering details, date format, and mention of sibling tool. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Despite no annotations and many parameters, the description sufficiently explains search behavior, input combinations, return fields, and link to gmail_read_email. Output schema exists, so return format details are covered.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description covers keyword, sender, subject, after, before (5/7) but omits unread_only and max_results. While it gives context for most parameters, two are left undocumented, requiring compensation that is not fully provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches Gmail and returns a compact list. It identifies the specific verb 'Search' and resource 'your Gmail', and distinguishes from the sibling gmail_read_email by mentioning it can be used with the returned ids.

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?

Explains when to use filters and that no filters returns recent emails. Provides date format and semantics. Could explicitly mention when not to use, but alternatives (gmail_read_email) are referenced for reading full messages.

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