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

Annotations already indicate a non-read operation and non-destructive intent. The description adds that the record 'keeps reporting and follow-ups correct,' hinting at downstream state effects, but it does not disclose details such as idempotency, overwriting, or which prospect record gets updated. No contradiction with 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?

A single 14-word sentence that front-loads the action and appends the purpose. No filler or repetition of the title or schema.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves a critical gap around how to identify the prospect. The basic use case is clear, but the absence of required parameters and alternative identifier semantics makes it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description never mentions prospectId or linkedinUrl. With zero required parameters, an agent cannot tell whether one identifier is sufficient, whether both are needed, or how linkedinUrl relates to prospectId. The parameter names are readable, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema docs.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record that a prospect was emailed outside getcleed.' The phrase 'outside getcleed' immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools that actually send email, such as send_email, and clarifies its bookkeeping role.

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 gives clear context by specifying the tool is for emails sent outside getcleed, implying it is not for emails sent through getcleed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use send_email instead,' so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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