search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose useful behavior (empty query returns newest messages, omitting account fans out across ALL connected accounts, max_results range 1-50), but says nothing about output shape, pagination across accounts, rate limits, or auth scope.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and a syntax example, then a compact per-parameter block. Every line earns its place; the Args formatting is slightly schema-like but not wasteful.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs well but never indicates what comes back (message IDs, snippets, thread grouping?) or how results behave when multiple accounts are searched. That gap is minor for a search primitive but real.

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 does: it defines the query dialect, explains that an empty query returns newest messages, clarifies that account accepts an email or alias and that omitting it searches every connected account, and adds a 1-50 bound not present in the schema. Only max_results' default behavior is left implicit.

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 (Search) and resource (email) and pins down the query dialect with a concrete Gmail-syntax example ('is:unread from:bob newer_than:7d'), which cleanly separates it from read_email/read_thread/list_accounts. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or stating when this is preferred over them, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 implied by the syntax example and by the hints that an empty query 'returns the newest messages' and omitting account searches all accounts, which is genuinely useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as read_email, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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