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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, write), the description discloses specific consequences: pending outreach emails stop either way, not interested adds the contact to the do-not-email list so no campaign writes again, and lifecycle stage is untouched. These are the exact behavioral traits an agent needs to fearlessly invoke it.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and consequence, and each subsequent sentence earns its place (email-stop behavior, do-not-email consequence, lifecycle boundary, pricing). 'Free' is a small low-signal tail but harmless.

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 3-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity, effects, side effects, and the boundary to crm_update_contact. The only minor gap is the exact meaning of the status enum, which the schema already enumerates.

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 0%, so the schema itself gives only types and an enum. The description compensates partially by clarifying that contact_id or email are alternative identifiers for the same person, but it does not explain the status enum values or which identifier to prefer. Moderate value over the bare 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 and target value ('Set whether someone your outreach reached is interested or not interested') on a named field (their contact's outreach_status), and identifies the two lookup keys (contact_id or email). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from crm_update_contact, which handles lifecycle stage.

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?

Clear about when to reach for it (recording an outreach outcome as interested/not interested) and explicitly routes the lifecycle-change case to crm_update_contact. It does not spell out when NOT to use it versus the other outreach_* tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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