search

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, and the description adds little behavioral detail beyond that. It does not mention pagination, output format, account requirements, or the ambiguous '(unconfigured)' prefix.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded with the action. However, the '(unconfigured)' prefix is distracting and unexplained, which prevents this from being a perfectly clean definition.

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?

With five parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support an agent. It does not describe result shape, pagination behavior, or how account relates to the mailbox, leaving important operational details unspecified.

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, but it only clarifies the query parameter (Gmail query syntax) and loosely ties 'mailbox' to the account. The page_token, max_results, and include_spam_trash parameters are left entirely unexplained despite their non-obvious defaults.

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 the resource ('a mailbox'), and it identifies the key mechanism as Gmail query syntax. It is distinguishable from the sibling get/list tools at a high level, but it does not specify what kind of results are returned or explicitly differentiate itself from related tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is mentioned. The intended use is implied by the verb and resource, with the only concrete usage hint being 'Gmail query syntax'.

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