Send one follow-up the user approved

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: re-checks the thread, blocks if customer replied, and lists optional overrides with defaults. It does not mention success/failure responses or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise—three sentences that cover purpose, behavior, and a critical warning. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses formatting for emphasis. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 12 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details on essential parameters like 'to', 'subject', 'cc', 'bcc', and 'accountAlias'. The safety behavior and approval requirement are good, but overall completeness is low.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions a few optional overrides (body, format, quoteOriginal, appendSignature), leaving 8 other parameters (including required reminderId) completely undescribed. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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's action ('Send') and resource ('one approved follow-up reminder'). It specifies the unique behavior of re-checking the thread and blocking if the customer replied, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like multi_gmail_send or multi_gmail_followup_trigger.

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 provides a critical usage constraint: 'NEVER call without explicit user approval after showing the draft.' This gives clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, which would improve the score.

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