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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only). The description adds real behavioral substance beyond them: it explains exactly what stops ('Nothing more is written to them — an approved letter included') and what does NOT change (lead status). This is meaningful effect disclosure, though it omits auth/rate-limit context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The 'one stop Tommo obeys' phrasing is slightly idiosyncratic but compactly conveys that this is a hard block; every sentence contributes.

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 mutation with an annotation set and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the purpose, the effect, the status invariant, and the one undocumented parameter. Missing only explicit routing to resume_outreach and any return/confirmation detail.

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 50% — contact_id is documented in-schema but note is not. The description compensates by explaining the note param ('note says until when or why'), which is the only gap in the schema, so it adds genuine meaning over what the schema provides.

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 (pause) and resource (outreach to a lead) in the first clause, clearly distinct from the sibling resume_outreach. An agent can immediately tell this is a suppression action on a contact's outreach.

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 the use case (stop outreach until resumed) and gives guidance for the note param ('until when or why'), but never states explicit when-to-use/when-not or names resume_outreach as the counterpart for the reverse condition. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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