google-gmail_search_messages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of conveying behavioral traits. It merely states 'endpoint' without disclosing any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response characteristics.

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 extremely short (one phrase), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not efficiently convey essential information; every word is redundant with the name.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description must compensate. It offers no explanation of return values, search syntax, or practical usage, making it completely inadequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline is 4, but the description fails to add any meaning—e.g., it does not explain that search may be broad or require query parameters beyond the schema. The lack of clarification about how to actually perform a search lowers the score.

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 is essentially a tautology ('search_messages endpoint') that restates the tool name without clarifying its function. It does not differentiate from siblings like list_messages or get_message, leaving the unique purpose ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use search_messages versus list_messages or other Gmail tools. The description lacks context about search criteria, expected behavior, or alternatives.

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