search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the return type ('List of email objects'), but omits critical behavioral traits like read-only status (implicit but unconfirmed), rate limits, or result sorting order.

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 Args/Returns structure is clear and scannable. While embedding parameter documentation in the description text is redundant when schemas exist, it is necessary here given the schema lacks descriptions. No extraneous content.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter search tool with output schema present. Covers inputs and basic return structure, but gaps remain regarding safety profile (read-only assurance) and differentiation from the specialized 'list_unread' sibling.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema coverage. The Args section fully documents both parameters: 'query' includes three concrete syntax examples, and 'max_results' specifies the valid range (1-100) and default value (20) absent from 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 identifies the action (search), resource (emails), and specific mechanism (Gmail query syntax). Examples like 'is:unread' and 'subject:invoice' implicitly distinguish it from sibling 'list_unread', though it could explicitly mention when to prefer the dedicated unread tool.

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 rich query syntax examples that implicitly guide usage, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'list_unread' or prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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