gmail_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details (Gmail query syntax, empty-query behavior) beyond a generic purpose, but it omits other traits like result ordering, pagination, or explicit read-only confirmation, although 'search' strongly implies a read operation.

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 concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by practical examples and an edge case. Every sentence adds value with no repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to construct queries, and default behavior. An output schema exists to define return values. However, max_results semantics and potential pagination/ordering are not addressed, and the absence of annotations leaves safety unmentioned, though the read-only nature is implied.

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 query parameter is thoroughly explained with syntax examples and empty-query behavior. The max_results parameter is not mentioned in the description at all; only the schema provides its type and default, leaving a gap since schema description coverage is 0%.

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 'Search Gmail messages', which is a specific verb and resource. The Gmail query syntax examples further differentiate it from sibling tools like gmail_read_message or gmail_read_thread, establishing its purpose as search/filter.

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?

Clear usage context is provided via concrete query examples (is:unread, from:, subject:, has:attachment, after:) and the note about empty queries returning recent messages. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like gmail_read_message, nor does it state exclusions.

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