gmail_search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning 'metadata' but does not specify what metadata fields are included, pagination, auth requirements, rate limits, or performance characteristics.

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 extremely concise at 17 words, front-loading key information ('Legacy search'). Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with query syntax, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return structure, field names in metadata, result limits (though max_results schema exists), or how account selection works beyond the schema.

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 67% (query and account have descriptions; max_results lacks description). The description adds 'using Gmail query syntax' which provides context for the query parameter but does not add meaningful detail for account or max_results beyond 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 searches and returns an array of Gmail message metadata using Gmail query syntax. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'gmail_search_emails', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gmail_search_emails'. There is no context about legacy status or when to prefer one over the other.

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