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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it says the tool is FREE, never raises a protocol error on bad input, returns an error object explaining what is wrong and how to fix it, and is safe to retry after correction. It does not cover rate limits or deeper runtime constraints, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance, then provides a concrete example and error behavior. It is somewhat long and includes example output despite the presence of an output schema, but the included material is generally useful rather than wasteful.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, complete schema descriptions, annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the definition is complete. It covers purpose, appropriate use, the closest alternative, example shape, error behavior, and retry safety without needing to explain return values in detail.

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%, so the schema already documents days, touches, and channels, including defaults and clamping ranges. The description reinforces the semantics with a typical input example and the alternating-channel behavior, but does not add much beyond what the fully described schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: plan an outreach cadence with expanding gaps and per-touch purposes. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling audit_copy by explicitly saying it is not for message wording, and the example input/output makes the tool's scope concrete.

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 explicit usage criteria: use when cadence and per-touch purpose are the question, and not for wording of any single message. It names audit_copy as the alternative for message wording, and adds retry guidance after correcting invalid input.

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