gmail_list_unread

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the safety narrative. The verb 'list' implies read-only retrieval and max_results behavior is helpful, but the description never explicitly states that messages are not modified or that unread state is preserved. This is a clear gap for a Gmail tool.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean Args listing for parameter details. Every sentence is useful and none repeat schema default values verbatim without adding 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?

With an output schema present and both parameters documented, the agent has enough to call the tool correctly. The only notable omission is an explicit statement about side effects (not marking messages as read) and error/pagination behavior, which prevents a 5.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates: it explains the meaning of 'account' and 'max_results', gives the default, and states the max. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types/defaults.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource pair ('List unread emails') and enumerates the returned fields (subject, sender, date, snippet). This scope distinguishes it from siblings like gmail_get_message and gmail_send even without naming them.

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 gives concrete invocation context: account is optional and falls back to default, and max_results has a stated default and maximum. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the use case is clear enough from the operation.

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