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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds crucial context: it lists the data returned (draft text, lead, scoring reason) and clarifies it is read-only by stating it does not send. It also mentions the prerequisite of reading get_lead_memo for the follow-up tool, providing workflow transparency beyond 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: purpose, content, usage, and workflow in logical order. Every sentence earns its place—no filler. It is a bit long but each part is valuable and directly helps the agent decide when and how to call it.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, how it fits with sibling tools, and notes its read-only nature. Complete for an agent to call it correctly and understand its role in the workflow.

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% with both parameters described (limit and campaignId). The description adds a slight clarification ('Omit campaignId for the whole workspace') but that essentially repeats the schema's 'omit for every campaign you take part in'. No additional parameter-level meaning beyond schema is provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List outreach messages the agent has drafted that are waiting for a human to approve'. It names the queue ('a message for X is ready') and describes the returned content, clearly distinguishing it from send_outreach and rewrite_outreach which are mentioned as different actions.

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 says when to use: 'Use it to review drafts in bulk, or to spot copy that reads like a mail-merge before it goes out.' It also states what it does not do ('does not send anything itself') and directs to alternatives with a workflow: improve copy with rewrite_outreach (read get_lead_memo first), then queue with send_outreach after approval.

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