persons_list_mail_messages

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

The description details what is returned (subjects, timestamps, associated entities) and mentions pagination support, which is sufficient for a read-only list operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it lacks mention of authorization or rate limits but is otherwise transparent.

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 well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. It is moderately concise; the use-case list could be shortened without losing meaning, but overall it is efficient and readable.

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 a list tool with no output schema, the description lists key returned fields and mentions pagination. It does not specify response format (e.g., array or object) or pagination metadata (e.g., total count), which would improve completeness, but the provided information is adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (id, start, limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds the word 'pagination' but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema, so value added is minimal.

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 'List mail messages associated with a person' and enumerates specific email types and data fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like deals_list_mail_messages or organizations_list_mail_messages by focusing on person context.

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 lists practical use cases (e.g., reviewing communication history, preparing for meetings) that guide when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative list-mail tools for deals or organizations, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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