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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, whether permissions/scopes are required, or what happens to shared/labeled contacts.

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?

One short sentence with the verb and target front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient but so terse that no useful detail survives.

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?

A simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering destructiveness, so little is strictly needed. However, for a destructive operation it omits whether the delete is permanent and how to obtain the resource_name, both of which an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 both parameters (account and resource_name, including the 'people/c...' example format) are already documented. The description adds no parameter meaning, so 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 (delete) and resource (a contact from Google Contacts), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from contacts_get/update/create by the verb alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the action is clear enough to select on.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the sibling tools (contacts_search or contacts_list) that produce the required resource_name. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name and schema.

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