gmail_search_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination and mentions return fields (messages, nextPageToken, resultSizeEstimate). It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but for a read operation this is acceptable.

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 a single sentence plus a recommendation note, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful details.

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 description mentions key return values but does not include output schema or examples. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but could be more detailed on query syntax or edge cases.

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 coverage is high (100%), so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The term 'rich' hints at advanced search capability, but does not explain parameter behavior beyond what is in the schema.

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 the tool performs a paginated Gmail search and specifies it returns messages, nextPageToken, and resultSizeEstimate. It distinguishes from sibling gmail_search_messages by recommending use for triage.

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 explicitly advises 'Prefer this for triage' based on return values, implying when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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