search_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behaviors: the search scope is the inbox and the response contains ids only, not message bodies. It says nothing about pagination, how max_results caps the search, rate limits, or truncation of large result sets.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return shape. No filler, nothing an agent must scan past.

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?

A simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, so it does not need extensive prose, but the undocumented max_results and absent pagination behavior leave a real gap for an agent planning result retrieval.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that query uses Gmail search syntax, which is genuinely valuable, but max_results is left entirely unexplained (defaults, maximum, relationship to pagination).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the inbox") plus the return shape ("matching message ids"). This differentiates it reasonably from get_message and list_threads, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of Gmail search syntax and the fact that only ids come back hints that get_message should follow for content. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_threads or get_message, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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