gmail_list_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: it intentionally omits bodies, returns metadata+snippet only, and explicitly states it doesn't decide urgency. That adds value beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail return format specifics despite an output schema being present.

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?

Two concise paragraphs with clear front-loading: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second paragraph clarifies scope and philosophy. No wasted words. Could trim the philosophical note about not deciding urgency, but it does convey the tool's division of responsibility.

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?

For a read-only, open-world list tool with 3 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what's returned (metadata+snippet, labels like IMPORTANT/STARRED/UNREAD), why it's cheap, and its intended use case. Slight gap: parameter semantics for account/max_results could be clearer, and it doesn't mention pagination, but for this tool class the coverage is strong.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the 3 parameters have no descriptions. However, the description mentions query-relevant concepts ('in:inbox newer_than:2d' default is in the schema, labels like IMPORTANT/STARRED/UNREAD are mentioned), giving the agent signal about what the query/max_results parameters control. It adds modest value but doesn't fully document each parameter's semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('fetch') + resource ('recent inbox messages') with a clear qualifier ('Fast, compact... for periodic triage'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling gmail_search by emphasizing 'recent inbox for triage' and noting it returns metadata+snippet only, differentiating it from gmail_read_message.

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 explicitly states this is for 'periodic triage' and periodic scheduled calls, implying the use case. It establishes the when-to-use context (cheap scheduled fetch) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, though the distinction from read_message/search is implied by the metadata-only framing.

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