get_people_contact_group_members

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Description implies read-only ('get'), but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Lacks explicit behavioral traits such as idempotency or authentication requirements.

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 with a third sentence for use-case context. Every sentence adds value, no filler. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, description lacks prerequisites (e.g., label must exist, case sensitivity), error cases, or any mention of the returned data structure. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for full context.

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 50% (only user_google_email has a description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'type a label name' but label parameter is already a string. No additional guidance on format or usage for either parameter.

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?

Clearly states the action (resolve contact group/label name to member emails) and resource. Provides analogy to Gmail autocomplete, distinguishing from sibling tools like list_people_contact_labels. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly describes usage context ('Useful for batch operations: resolve label → get emails → perform actions'). Provides workflow guidance though does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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