Search every connected Gmail mailbox

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

The annotations already provide key behavioral context (read-only, open-world, idempotent). The description adds meaningful detail beyond annotations by pointing out that all mailboxes are searched in parallel, which affects concurrency expectations, and clarifies that Gmail syntax is used.

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 one sentence that thoroughly covers scope, target resources, and behavior with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action for 'search every mailboxes in parallel' and ends with the syntax detail.

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 tool with two optional parameters, strong annotations, and a well-known search semantics, this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that results are aggregated across mailboxes or noting a limit caveat, but those are minor and not critical.

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 50%; only 'query' gets a description, while 'max_results_per_mailbox' is unnamed but self-explanatory. The description adds 'normal Gmail search syntax,' which is a decent hint about query semantics but adds no new meaning for the max_results parameter beyond what the name suggests.

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 action is a search across all connected Gmail/Google Workspace mailboxes, with parallel execution. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_mailboxes, which would target a narrower scope. The specificity of 'every connected mailbox' makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 the use case (searching all mailboxes at once) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_mailboxes or list_mailboxes. It lacks clear exclusion criteria or mention of sibling tools for comparison.

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