email_get_labels

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

No annotations are provided and the description is a single sentence with no behavioral disclosure beyond the literal operation. It doesn't state response format, whether labels include system labels, rate limits, or any mutation implications. For a list operation this is thin, and with zero annotation coverage, the description carries the full burden but doesn't meet it.

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 short sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately terse for a simple list operation, though it could have used the compact space to add a bit more behavioral context without losing conciseness.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is a simple operation, so the completeness bar isn't high. However, the 'Gmail only' restriction is unexplained, no output structure is hinted at, and there's no contrast with the many sibling email tools. Given zero annotations, this is under-specified for full context.

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 single accountId parameter, but it adds no detail beyond what the schema's type 'string' already conveys. The 'email account' phrasing in the description hints at accountId meaning but doesn't clarify format (email address vs account identifier) or validate requirements.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('labels for an email account'), with a useful scope qualifier ('Gmail only'). It provides clear purpose and distinguishes from the sibling email_list_folders, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 'Gmail only' qualifier conveys a limitation context, implying it should not be used for other providers. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs email_list_folders or email_get_categories, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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