mail_search

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds relevant behavior such as including Deleted Items, per-account cursors, and requiring identical filters/pageSize when paginating. No statement contradicts the readOnly/openWorld annotations.

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?

Two focused sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by constraints and pagination usage. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Covers purpose, filter style, folder scope, and pagination mechanics for a list/search tool. It does not describe output ordering or return shape, but given no output schema and the search/list nature, this is a reasonable completeness level.

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 schema itself documents names and formats, and the description adds the key semantic layer: structured sender/subject/date filters, account selection, and cursor/pageSize pagination behavior. It does not walk through every filter, but property names and formats make them self-explanatory.

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?

States it lists/searches messages across selected accounts and explicitly distinguishes from full-text/Gmail-syntax search; resource and action are clear. The 'Includes ... Deleted Items' note further defines scope, and the pagination note distinguishes this multi-account batch behavior from single-message siblings.

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?

Gives concrete usage boundaries: structured filters only, not full-text/Gmail syntax, and explains how pagination works per account. It could be stronger by explicitly naming mail_read_message as the single-message alternative, but the constraints are clear.

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