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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: 'Tommo is back on it' does not say whether resuming immediately queues or sends a message, restarts the cadence from the beginning or resumes mid-sequence, or whether any lead state changes are reset.

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?

One short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded, so it is easy to scan. The appended 'Tommo is back on it' is unexplained product jargon that consumes space without adding selectable information.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations carrying safety and idempotency, and no output schema to describe, the definition is minimally adequate. It still omits the observable effect of resuming (what the agent should expect to change) and the failure behavior when the lead is not paused.

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% for the single contact_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's word 'lead' loosely signals that contact_id targets a lead record, but adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resume outreach') plus the precondition of the target ('to a paused lead'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling pause_outreach without opening the schema. The trailing 'Tommo is back on it' adds flavor rather than precision, and pause_outreach is never named explicitly.

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 phrase 'to a paused lead' implies the required state and thus when the tool applies, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement of what happens if the lead isn't paused, and no reference to the inverse tool pause_outreach that would route the agent cleanly.

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