list_people_contact_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states it lists groups and returns fields. It does not mention whether there is pagination, rate limits, read-only nature, or any side effects. For a list operation, safety is implied but not explicit.

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 a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No superfluous words or 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description appropriately mentions key return fields. It adequately covers the essential information for a list operation, though it could mention result structure (e.g., 'returns a list') or behavior when no groups exist.

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 100%, and the input schema already provides detailed documentation for the 'user_google_email' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 action 'List', the resource 'contact groups/labels', and scope 'for the authenticated user'. It also specifies the returned fields (resourceName, name, member counts, groupType), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'manage_people_contact_labels' and 'get_people_contact_group_members'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the sibling tool names (manage_people_contact_labels for CRUD, get_people_contact_group_members for specific groups) provide implicit context. The description is clear about the basic function but lacks alternatives or prerequisites.

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