people search other contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results come from an auto-populated Gmail-derived pool, but says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or what happens when max_results is exceeded.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the resource and uses the parenthetical efficiently for disambiguation. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. For a two-parameter read-only search, the description covers the essential who/what; only max_results semantics and sibling routing are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the query string may match name, email, or phone, which is real added meaning; however, max_results is left completely unexplained (no default or cap mentioned).

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 (Search) and a precisely scoped resource ('Other contacts'), and parenthetically defines that scope as auto-saved Gmail correspondents, which distinguishes it from people_search_contacts and people_list_other_contacts. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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 parenthetical implies when this tool applies (you want correspondents auto-saved from Gmail rather than explicit contacts), but there is no explicit 'use X instead' routing to people_search_contacts or people_list_other_contacts, and no exclusion criteria.

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