Import Venmo Gmail

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: idempotency via the external_id scheme, an explicit dry_run option, a price ($0.15), and an API-key requirement. Annotations already establish it is a non-destructive write, so the description correctly focuses on the traits annotations can't convey, though it doesn't describe what dry_run actually returns versus a real run.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the output contract, then packs options and routing into a tight second sentence. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides (idempotent, cost, API key), but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. For an 8-parameter write tool the description covers identity/idempotency, cost, auth, and routing, leaving only minor gaps like the effect of mirror_event and the dry-run behavior.

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 75%, and the description names five of the eight parameters (dry_run, max_results, query, mirror_event, account) without adding format or default detail beyond the schema. The remaining params (email, request_id, idempotency_key) are left to the schema, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (search Gmail for Venmo receipts) and the concrete output resource (log_transaction rows with a defined external_id format). The scoping to Venmo and the write target distinguish it clearly from siblings like import_uber_gmail, search_gmail, and log_transaction.

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?

Explicitly routes away from an alternative with 'Prefer this over calendar-only Money · digs,' giving a clear selection condition. It does not, however, contrast with the closest sibling import_uber_gmail or explain when a plain search_gmail pass would suffice.

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