search_gmail

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search Gmail inbox' and does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, result format, or whether the search uses Gmail query syntax. The operation appears read-only, but that is implicit rather than stated.

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 concise with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it may be too terse to be genuinely helpful, sacrificing useful context for brevity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete for reliable invocation. An agent would not know what the return value looks like, whether maxResults has a limit, or what query syntax is accepted, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'query' or 'maxResults' parameters. The parameter names are mildly self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify expected formats, defaults, or constraints, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('Gmail inbox'), making the core purpose immediately understandable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'get_email_content', which could plausibly overlap in purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_email_content, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and short description.

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