search_threads

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

The description adds value beyond the schema by noting returns are thread stubs with a next_page_token for pagination, but it does not disclose destructive potential, authentication needs, or rate limits. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loaded, but it omits essential parameter details, making it too brief for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema and 6 undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain thread stub contents, pagination mechanics, or the purpose of authentication parameters, leaving an agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description provides no information about the 6 parameters (query, max_results, page_token, include_spam_trash, account, password), leaving critical fields like account and password ambiguous. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 threads using Gmail query syntax, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_messages or get_thread.

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 hints at usage via 'Gmail query syntax' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_thread, nor does it provide when-not or exclusion guidance.

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