gws.mail.search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the Gmail search syntax, but it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, result format, or whether results include full content or just metadata.

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 that conveys the essential purpose and includes a relevant example. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous content.

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 simple search tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit return-value description, but given the clarity of 'Search emails' and the example, it remains 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context with the example query, but does not substantially beyond what the schema already provides for account or maxResults.

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 and resource ('Search emails') and further specifies the query syntax with a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_message and list_labels, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by indicating a search function with Gmail syntax, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For example, it could clarify that read_message is for retrieving specific messages, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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