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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: deterministic routing, event-hit fields like event_date and food_id, exclusion of browser-history titles, redaction of credential/secret spans, authentication requirements, and cost/API key requirements. This gives an agent a strong and accurate picture of side effects, constraints, and access needs.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the primary purpose is front-loaded, routing rules are compactly listed, exclusions and redaction are stated, and auth/cost are included without padding. It delivers a substantial amount of decision-relevant information in a concise block.

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 tool of this complexity, the description covers purpose, routing logic, result qualifications, privacy redactions, authentication, and cost. The rich annotations and presence of an output schema mean return-value details do not need to be in the description. No critical information for correct tool invocation appears to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the parameters. The description enriches the meaning of the query parameter by explaining routing behavior and search categories, but it does not add parameter-level details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the primary parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the authenticated user life graph.' It then distinguishes the tool's behavior by describing deterministic routing categories and a fallback to semantic/keyword search, so an agent understands what this tool is for and how it diverges from generic search tools.

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?

The description gives concrete routing guidance for query types such as food + relative dates, timeline/current-context, money + person, and who-is queries, including a referral to resolve_person as the alternative for who-is. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives such as search_gmail or get_events, but the resource definition and routing rules provide clear context for when this tool is applicable.

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