Gmail Read Statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It explicitly says 'read-only', which is the key behavioral disclosure, and mentions 'decoded text' and the returned fields. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when message_id is not a statement email.

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. The purpose is front-loaded, and the workflow instruction is placed directly after the return-value list. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure is covered. The description adds the critical workflow step of calling import_statement. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning the prerequisite step of obtaining message_id from gmail_find_statements or handling non-statement emails, but it is otherwise sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 implies that message_id identifies the email to read, but it never explicitly defines the parameter or says where the ID comes from (e.g., a prior gmail_find_statements result). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the origin is left to inference.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('one statement email's decoded text'), and explicitly marks the operation read-only. It also names the follow-up tool (import_statement), and the phrase 'one statement email' distinguishes it from the search-oriented sibling gmail_find_statements.

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 clear workflow context: extract transactions from the returned text, then call import_statement to review and import them. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow instruction strongly implies the intended usage chain.

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