gws.mail.get_profile

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific return fields (email, messages total, threads total), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It doesn't overexplain, but this is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

This is a minimal tool with one optional parameter, clear annotations, and a description that lists the exact output fields. No output schema is needed, and the description fully covers what the agent needs to know for selection and invocation.

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 100% because the only parameter 'account' is fully described ('Account label or email. Uses default if omitted.'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('Gmail profile info') and the exact data returned (email, messages total, threads total). This fully distinguishes it from sibling mail tools like list_labels or 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 clearly implies its usage as a read-only retrieval of account-level profile data, which is distinct from message-level or label-level operations. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose this tool for profile information.

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