pipedrive_get_person_emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns only metadata, is company-wide, and requires the person ID. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context.

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 two sentences plus a short note, about 40 words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides essential clarification about metadata versus full body. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It states 'metadata' but does not specify fields or structure. Pagination behavior (start, limit) is not described. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

All three parameters (id, start, limit) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning beyond implying that id is the person identifier. The start and limit parameters are not elaborated in the description, so the schema carries the full 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 clearly states the tool retrieves email messages linked to a person, specifies it is company-wide (all users' emails), and differentiates from pipedrive_get_mail_message by noting it returns metadata only. This contrasts with sibling tools like pipedrive_get_deal_emails, though not 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 description gives context on when to use this tool (to get all linked emails across users) and provides a note about using pipedrive_get_mail_message for full body, but only for own mailbox. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives for other scenarios, but the guidance is helpful.

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