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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: replies are still read during the pause, follow-ups resume from where they left off, and the operation is free. Those are meaningful beyond the structured hints. It doesn't describe the response shape, but with no output schema that's a minor gap.

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 short sentences, no filler: the action comes first, then the side-effect clarification, then the resume path. Every sentence carries distinct 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 one-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the facts an agent needs: reversibility, resume behavior, and that replies continue. Only the absence of any note on what the call returns keeps it from a 5.

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% and the single campaign_id parameter is documented in the schema with a helpful provenance note referencing outreach_save_campaign. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered params is correct.

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: 'Stop sending a running campaign for now.' The qualifier 'for now' plus the mention of outreach_resume makes clear this is a temporary halt, which an agent can distinguish from outreach_stop by name alone. However, the description never explicitly contrasts itself with outreach_stop or outreach_set_status, so the sibling boundary is only implied.

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?

It gives the resume path explicitly ('resume it with outreach_resume') and describes what happens on resume, which tells the agent this is the reversible option. It stops short of stating when to choose pause over the irreversible outreach_stop or outreach_set_status, so the exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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