gmail_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: read-only status, default ids-only behavior, quota implications of enrich, concurrency bounds, pagination defaults, hard cap of 10000, and YAML output format. This is exemplary for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler. Core action and query syntax are front-loaded, followed by return mode, enrichment cost, pagination, and output format. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 moderately complex search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the input query, default and enriched return shapes, output format, pagination behavior, cost/performance tradeoffs, and safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces key semantics like limit defaulting to 50, the 0 auto-pagination behavior, enrich cost, and concurrency default, but most of this is already present in the schema. It adds marginal framing around quota-safety and deliberate usage but does not materially expand on the parameter schema.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: search Gmail messages using Gmail query syntax. It distinguishes itself from message/thread read tools by emphasizing the query/list nature and the default ids-only return, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage context is strongly implied: this is the tool for searching Gmail inboxes with Gmail query syntax, and it explains when to enable enrich. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like gmail_message_read or says when not to use this tool, so the guidance is mostly implicit rather than explicit.

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