Gmail Find Statements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the read-only nature, the returned fields (message id/subject/from/date/snippet), and the default query behavior, which is meaningful beyond the schema. It stops short of mentioning auth, rate limits, or query syntax, but for a read-only search this is adequate.

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 concise, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states purpose and safety, the second describes output and selection intent, and the third explains the default behavior and next step. No wasted words.

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 search tool with an output schema and a clearly named follow-up sibling, the description covers the essential workflow, default behavior, and return contents. The only notable omission is explicit explanation of the 'max_results' parameter and custom query usage, but the tool remains callable without those details.

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. It explains the optional 'query' default behavior, but gives no detail on query syntax or semantics. 'max_results' is not mentioned at all, though its meaning is somewhat inferable from its name and default.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('bank/card statement emails in Gmail'), and clarifies it is read-only. It also names the follow-up tool (gmail_read_statement), which distinguishes this scanning step from the reading step.

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?

Provides clear context: the default query targets common Indian bank/card statement senders in the last 3 months, and the result should be picked from before calling gmail_read_statement. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is clear.

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