gws.contacts.directory_search

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

No contradiction—the description's read-only note aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds useful context like the matching semantics, but doesn't fully capitalize on adding unique value: it could mention pagination or result limits, though this is somewhat covered by the straightforward nature of the tool. Scores a solid 3.

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?

Three sentences, clear topic sentences, information-dense without fluff. Everything earns its place.

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 the context (2 simple params, no nested objects), the description covers the use case, behavior, and limitations. The only minor gap is distinguishing from sibling 'gws.contacts.search', but that doesn't lower the score significantly given the clarity of the directory search 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 100%, and description reiterates the matching semantics but adds no new details about formats or behaviors beyond what's in the schema. Meets the baseline for adequate param support.

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?

Specifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('Google Workspace organization directory'), and the matching criteria ('by name or email'), and clarifies what's returned ('display name and email addresses'). Clearly differentiates from personal Gmail contacts.

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 states this is for Google Workspace organization directories and NOT for personal Gmail accounts, giving a clear exclusion criterion and expected behavior when used incorrectly.

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