Get Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: it extracts data from both inbox and sent folders, includes recency-weighted ranking, and infers organization. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence describes output fields, second clarifies data source. No redundant or vague statements.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description is largely complete: it covers data source, fields, and ranking. It could explicitly mention that contacts are aggregated from email interactions, but that is implied. Lacks mention of pagination or limit behavior, but schema covers limit parameter.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context about recency-weighted ranking, which relates to the 'recent' sort option, but does not otherwise enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('extract', 'includes') and lists concrete data fields (send/receive counts, dates, organization, ranking). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like alias_list_contacts by focusing on email history aggregation rather than alias management.

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 implies usage for retrieving contact statistics from email history, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. sibling tools (e.g., get_correspondence_profile, alias_list_contacts). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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