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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries meaningful additional context. It explains that Sliq only sends within this window, that a closed or paused window is not a failure, and that sends cannot be moved into a closed window. This is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs and is not present in the 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?

The description is structured and efficient, with the core purpose front-loaded and the diagnostic guidance placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place, and the return details are justified because no output schema exists.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it covers what the tool returns, when to use it, how to interpret edge cases such as closed windows and empty active_days, and the timezone legacy default. No necessary context is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the schema fully covers inputs. The description instead details the return fields, which is more valuable here given there is no output 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 it retrieves the account's outreach activity window and whether it is open right now, a specific verb and resource. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling getters such as get_outreach_approval and get_campaign_flow. No ambiguity remains even before reviewing structured fields.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: check this when a queue looks idle before telling the user something is broken, because a closed window or empty active_days is a normal hold. It does not name alternatives, but the zero-parameter signature and unique resource make that omission minor.

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