google_gmail_search

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns full message content, metadata only, or pagination limits. It only describes the search capability without details on outputs or side effects.

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 extremely concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes relevant examples without unnecessary text.

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?

While the description effectively conveys the search purpose and syntax, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., returns message metadata, snippets) and any constraints like rate limits or maximum results, leaving a gap for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description adds value for the `query` parameter with syntax examples, but does not enhance the `max_results` or `label_ids` parameters beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. Schema coverage is 67%, leaving one parameter undocumented in 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 searches Gmail messages and provides specific examples of Gmail search syntax, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read (single message) and send.

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 gives explicit search syntax examples, implying when to use the tool (e.g., searching by subject, date). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it compared to related tools or provide conditions for effective use.

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