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

The readOnlyHint already declares this is a safe read. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the search covers the entire organization's directory rather than a personal list, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what fields come back.

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 short sentences, scope stated first and the practical use case second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

Adequate for a simple three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, but the description does not resolve the main ambiguity an agent faces here: how this differs from contacts_search. That omission is the one thing most needed given the sibling set.

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 all three parameters are already documented with their formats and defaults. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 ('Search the company's Google Workspace directory') and clarifies the scope as 'all users in the organization', which is meaningfully different from a personal address book. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similarly named sibling gws-mcp__contacts_search, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one holds the org directory.

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?

'Useful for finding colleagues' contact info' gives a soft usage cue, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the obvious alternative (gws-mcp__contacts_search or jira_search_users). The agent is left to infer the routing rule.

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