search_gmail_messages

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses return format and pagination but does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, auth requirements, or error handling. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with separate sections for args and returns. It is concise, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description's explanation of return values (IDs, links, pagination token) suffices. It could mention potential error cases or limits, but overall it covers the essential aspects adequately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it explains each parameter's purpose (query supports Gmail operators, user_google_email required, page_size defaults to 10, page_token for pagination). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types.

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 it searches messages in a user's Gmail account based on a query, and specifies it returns Message IDs, Thread IDs, and web interface links. It calls out pagination support, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like get_gmail_message_content. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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