person_search

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it auto-resolves a name to all emails and phone numbers via Contacts and fans out across three sources. It omits other behavioral facts such as result ordering, deduplication across sources, permission needs, or pagination behavior beyond the limit param.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the defining scope ('ALL communication ... across Mail, Messages, and Calendar') is front-loaded in the first clause. 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 2-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and the non-obvious contact-resolution mechanism. It is slightly thin on return-value shape and result ordering, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the name-to-contacts resolution semantics but adds no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (ALL communication with a specific person) plus the scope (Mail, Messages, and Calendar). By declaring cross-source, person-centric aggregation it implicitly and cleanly distinguishes itself from the single-source siblings like mail_search, messages_search, and calendar_search.

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 cross-source scope implies when this is preferable to the per-source search tools, and the mention of automatic contact resolution hints at the setup it handles for you. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. smart_search or contacts_search) or states when NOT to use it, so guidance stays implied rather than explicit.

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