gmail_search

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

The description clearly lists exact return fields and explicitly states no message bodies are returned, which is strong behavioral disclosure. readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true align with the read/search nature described, no contradiction. It could add pagination or max_results semantics but annotations already establish the safety profile.

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 dense, well-structured sentences. First defines the core function and syntax; second enumerates return fields and directs to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place.

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?

Has an output schema which reduces burden on description for return values. Tool is conceptually simple (search + metadata list). The description covers purpose, syntax, return fields, and alternative tool. Slight gap: no guidance on pagination/cap on results, but for a simple search tool this is adequate.

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 schema provides only names and types. The description explains the 'query' parameter (Gmail search syntax examples) well and names the returned fields. However, it doesn't clarify the meaning or format of 'account' or how max_results behaves beyond its default. The query param is well-explained with an example, but not fully compensating for the schema's complete lack of 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?

Specific verb (search) + resource (messages) + clear indication of syntax type. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns metadata only and listing gmail_read_message as the full-body alternative.

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?

States it returns compact metadata with no bodies and explicitly points to gmail_read_message for full body, giving clear context for when to use this vs the read sibling. However, no guidance on when search is preferred over gmail_list_recent or gmail_apply_label, though openWorldHint suggests broad querying.

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