search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches threads using Gmail query syntax; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves, whether results are limited, or any authentication requirements.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core action. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions rather than being a well-structured, complete definition.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. Pagination and account targeting are unaddressed, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters. It adds meaning only for 'query' by mentioning Gmail query syntax; 'account', 'page_token', and 'max_results' receive no semantic explanation.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Gmail threads'), and the method ('Gmail query syntax'). It is clear enough to be distinguished from account/label/message-level tools in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly contrast with messages_list.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as messages_list or get_thread. The intended use is implied by the word 'search', but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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