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 only says 'Search for emails' with no mention of side effects, authentication specifics, rate limits, or return format. The description does not disclose that it is a read-only operation or explain pagination behavior.

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 that efficiently captures the tool's core functionality without extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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's complexity (pagination, query operators, multiple parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details about result format, pagination usage, and limitations. An agent would need more context for correct invocation.

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% for the 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not explain the query syntax or when to use pageToken.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('emails') with a specific scope ('in a specific Gmail account'). It effectively conveys the primary purpose. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like gmail_read or gmail_list_drafts, which have similar resource names.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gmail_read for specific messages, gmail_list_drafts for drafts). There are no instructions regarding prerequisites or when not to use it.

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