gws.contacts.search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reaffirms 'Read-only — it never modifies contacts.' It adds return fields and searchable attributes (name, nickname, email, phone) beyond annotations, providing useful behavioral context without contradicting them.

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 3 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then use case, then return info. No redundant phrases; every sentence 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 a simple 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, search criteria, and scope. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without additional clarification.

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 schema covers all parameters (query, account, maxResults) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds 'nickname' as a searchable field and provides use-case context, slightly enriching parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches the account's own Google Contacts by name, nickname, email, or phone, and specifies it returns display name, emails, and phone numbers. This distinguishes it from the sibling directory_search tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: resolving a name to email (before drafting mail) and looking up phone numbers. It implies the scope is the user's own contacts rather than directory-wide, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference directory_search as an alternative.

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