gmail_get_send_as

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get details', which implies a read operation, but does not specify permissions, idempotency, side effects, or response nature. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single sentence with six words, so it is concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Still, it earns a 4 for being front-loaded and free of verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description should at least indicate what 'details' includes (e.g., name, reply-to, isDefault). It does not. The tool is simple, but the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the return value.

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 100% for a single parameter, with description 'The send-as email address'. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Get details for a specific send-as alias', clearly identifying the action (get) and resource (send-as alias). The distinction from 'gmail_list_send_as' is implied by 'specific', but not explicit. Score 4 because it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'gmail_list_send_as'. No mention of prerequisites or context. The description only states the basic purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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