search_emails

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

The description indicates a read-only search and lists return fields, but with no annotations provided, it does not disclose limitations such as pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The return info is useful but the disclosure is not extensive.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, stating what the tool does and what it returns without any redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simplicity of a 2-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core functionality and return format. However, it lacks explicit confirmation of read-only nature and any potential side effects or limitations, so it is not fully complete.

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 describes query and maxResults, but the description adds meaning by explaining the query uses Gmail syntax and specifies the returned fields (sender, subject, date, snippet), which goes beyond the schema's basic type descriptions.

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 it searches Gmail using standard Gmail search syntax and lists the return fields (sender, subject, date, snippet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_emails, which likely lists without search syntax.

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 implies usage for search queries with Gmail syntax but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_emails or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but there are no exclusions or explicit alternative recommendations.

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