resolve_contact

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

Given no annotations, the description adequately covers behavioral traits: for Gmail it uses People API, for others it scans recent messages, and returns up to limit results. Could mention more about accuracy or rate limits.

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 concise sentences with purpose first, then backend details, then usage guidance. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 lookup tool with no annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, usage, and backend behavior sufficiently. Lacks explicit return format details but mentions {name, email}.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to 'query' (name or partial email), 'limit' (max results), and 'account' (specifies account). Provides moderate value beyond 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 verb 'Look up' and resource 'contact' with specific details on matching by name or partial email. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly email, event, or task oriented.

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 suggests using before send_email or create_event when the user refers to someone by name. Provides context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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