fetchGmailNotifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the operation is a read (fetch), covers all connected accounts, and returns a flattened list. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'recent' means, but given the simplicity of the tool, the disclosed scope is a meaningful behavioral trait.

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 two sentences, 18 words, and front-loads the primary action. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and return type, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains it returns a flattened list of notifications, but does not detail the notification structure, default time range, or pagination. Given the existence of sibling notification tools, this may be sufficient, but the lack of output schema places more burden on the description to clarify return format.

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 covers 100% of the parameter description, clearly explaining 'since' as an ISO 8601 timestamp filter. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high, and no further details are necessary.

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 fetches recent emails from Gmail accounts, with a specific verb (fetch) and resource (Gmail emails). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on Gmail, and adds the scope 'across all connected Gmail accounts' which is unique to this 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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and the mention of Gmail, making it clear when to use it over Slack/Jira/GitHub siblings. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool vs alternatives, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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