Raw Google People API call

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the Bearer token is added automatically, the method defaults to GET, query strings and repeated parameters are supported inline, and writes are never retried after ambiguous failures. These are meaningful behavioral facts that neither the annotations nor the input schema provide, and they are consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Despite its length, the description is dense and every sentence earns its place: it states purpose, gives concrete endpoint examples, clarifies auth/defaults, and adds a retry caveat. The purpose is front-loaded and the examples are directly actionable.

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 an arbitrary raw API tool, the description covers path construction, query-string handling, body usage, default method, auth token behavior, and write retry behavior. No output schema exists, but the raw response is implied by the tool name and title; nothing essential for invoking it correctly is 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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds extra value by explaining path query-string syntax, inline repeated parameters, and giving realistic path/body examples for PATCH and DELETE. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions without being redundant.

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 action ('call any Google People API v1 path directly') on a specific resource, and explicitly frames the tool as an escape hatch for requests the typed tools don't cover. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the sibling typed tools such as get_contact or list_contacts.

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?

It says exactly when to use it: when the typed tools don't cover a request, with concrete examples such as PATCH/DELETE contact photos, GET otherContacts with readMask, and extra query parameters like sources. The alternatives are the typed sibling tools, and the condition for choosing this tool is explicit.

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