search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the important behavioral trait that omitting account searches all enabled inboxes and merges results, but it does not mention other aspects such as return format, pagination, or authentication requirements. This is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters well, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., list of email IDs, subjects). The aggregation behavior is helpful, but the lack of return format and limited behavioral context makes it only minimally complete for an agent.

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 already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including the account parameter's note about aggregation. The description repeats this behavior without adding additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 Gmail using query syntax, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_drive_files and search_drafts, and the note about omitting account clarifies the scope.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining how the query parameter works and the behavior when omitting the account (aggregates all enabled inboxes). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions compared to sibling tools like read_emails or search_drafts.

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