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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it declares the tool read-only, free (no credits), and discloses that contact emails/phones are masked unless the caller holds the 'crm-contact-details' permission. It omits pagination behavior, default ordering and whether counters are lifetime or windowed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what a card is, followed by scope, permission masking and cost. Each sentence adds distinct information; the only mild inefficiency is the conversational parenthetical about CRM leads, which nonetheless serves a differentiating purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does at a high level: one card per campaign/SDR search with outbound counters. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the result-field details and pagination semantics are absent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage on its single parameter, and the description never mentions 'limit' at all — no default, no maximum, no effect on the result. The description therefore does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 the resource precisely: one card per campaign and per SDR search, carrying outbound counters. The parenthetical contrasts it with 'CRM leads', which contains only repliers, so an agent can tell the two lists apart. It lacks an explicit verb but the listing intent is unambiguous from the first sentence.

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 contrast with CRM leads ('everyone contacted, whether or not they replied') implicitly tells the agent to use this tool when it needs the complete outbound stream rather than only responding leads. However, it never states when NOT to use it, and does not route to the many other plausible siblings such as crm_communication_history, crm_communication_thread or sdr_outreach_summary.

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