gmail_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'returns message metadata', which implies a read-only operation without side effects, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness. For a search tool, the implicit safety is adequate, but lacks details on pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 8-word sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the core function but omits crucial details about parameters and usage. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. It lacks guidance on pagination, account selection, and result limits. The sibling tools are not contextualized.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'query' parameter via 'Gmail query syntax', but does not explain 'account', 'page_token', or 'max_results'. The agent gets no help understanding the purpose of these parameters beyond their names and types.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Gmail', and specifies 'with Gmail query syntax' and 'returns message metadata'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like gmail_read (reads a specific message) and gmail_send by implying a batch search capability, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_read or drive_search. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or specific scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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