gmail_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the query syntax and gives an example, but omits critical details like result limits, pagination, default label scope, or error handling. The agent lacks understanding of what the tool does beyond the basic search action.

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 with an example, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover parameter usage without losing brevity.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the required 'account' parameter, optional filters, or return value structure. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter names provide no meaning. The description does not explain any of the five parameters (account, query, max_results, label_ids, include_spam_trash) beyond the query example. The agent cannot infer how to use parameters like 'account' or 'label_ids' from this description.

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 function: searching messages using Gmail's query syntax. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gmail_message_get' (retrieve a single message) or 'gmail_thread_get' (get a thread).

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 when to use the tool (when searching with Gmail syntax), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with 'gmail_message_get' for retrieving individual messages.

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