List Person Emails

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

Annotations cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies the return format options (markdown/json), details the output content (list with location and primary status), and mentions error behavior ('Error: Resource not found' for invalid IDs). This enhances transparency beyond the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and error handling, compensating for the lack of an output schema. No gaps are present for this straightforward read operation.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal extra semantics, such as clarifying that 'response_format' controls output format, but does not significantly expand on the schema's details. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all email addresses for a specific person in PCO'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'pco_get_person' (which likely retrieves general person data) and 'pco_list_people' (which lists multiple people). It explicitly mentions the scope of returning email addresses with location and primary status.

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 implies usage when email addresses for a specific person are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pco_get_person' (which may include email data) or 'pco_list_people' (for broader listings). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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