List Gmail Labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping detail that all labels are returned, but does not mention auth prerequisites or return behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Single sentence of eight words with no wasted verbiage. The essential information is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter, an output schema, and annotations that cover safety. The description adequately states the operation scope; only sibling differentiation is omitted, which is more a usage-guideline concern than a completeness gap.

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 100%; the parameter user_google_email is fully described in the schema with its type and required status. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Lists,' the resource 'all labels,' and the scope 'in the user's Gmail account.' This clearly differentiates it from message search tools and label-management tools like manage_gmail_label.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_gmail_filters or manage_gmail_label. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and basic purpose, not articulated.

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