gmail_report_phishing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it declares the action irreversible and outward-facing, explains what happens on an unavailable entry (not_found plus a listing of offered actions), and notes the expect_subject safety guard. It stops short of saying what the user-visible outcome is on success (e.g. whether the message disappears from the inbox or is moved).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility, then the fallback guidance. The failure-mode sentence is slightly long and wrapped across lines, but each clause carries distinct information rather than padding.

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 seven-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers purpose, precondition, failure path, alternative tool, and the safety-check parameter. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description only restates the confirm gate. It adds no addressing semantics for index/query/folder/message_index beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Report a message as phishing to Google') and adds the irreversibility qualifier. It explicitly distinguishes itself from gmail.spam and gmail.message_actions, so an agent can choose without opening sibling schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use ('when Gmail offers it for that message'), when-not ('not every message has the entry'), the resulting failure mode (not_found), and the alternative to pick instead (gmail.spam). The confirm=true precondition is stated up front.

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