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 largely meets it: it discloses result ordering ('Newest first') and the exact returned fields (uid, date, sender, subject, labels), which usefully implies bodies are not returned. It also adds an untrusted-content warning. It omits pagination behavior, permission scope, and rate limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: capability and syntax first, then ordering and return fields, then the safety note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field list and ordering that would otherwise be missing. The remaining gap is the max_results cap/default and any pagination behavior, which is minor for a search tool.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates well for the query parameter by supplying real Gmail search syntax examples beyond the schema's 'Query as typed into Gmail's search box'. The max_results parameter receives no explanation of its 1-50 cap or default, leaving one parameter undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource and scope ('the whole Gmail mailbox'), which implicitly separates it from gmail_read (single message) and gmail_draft. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Two concrete query examples ('from:billing@example.com newer_than:7d', 'subject:contract has:attachment') establish the intended use case, and 'whole mailbox' signals broad retrieval. There is no when-not guidance or explicit routing to gmail_read/gmail_draft, which keeps it below a 5.

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