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 explains the account parameter and query syntax but fails to disclose key behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or that it returns a list of messages.

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 sentences with no wasted words. All key information is front-loaded: purpose first, then account details. Very concise.

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 complexity of a search tool and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and account handling but lacks details on pagination, default behavior, or scope of results. Minimal but functional completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'account' and gives query syntax examples, but does not define 'limit' or describe the 'query' parameter's expected format beyond examples. Partial addition of value.

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 tool searches mail using Gmail's full query syntax, providing specific examples (from:, subject:, is:unread). It distinguishes from siblings like gmail_read (single email) and gmail_draft.

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?

The description implies usage for complex searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_read or gmail_modify. No when-not conditions or alternative references are given.

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