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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only and free, which is valuable safety/cost context. It also implies a list-style return by saying 'every outbound touch', though it does not detail pagination behavior or response shape.

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 two compact sentences. The first sentence states the tool's function and filtering capabilities, and the second adds the prerequisite and safety/cost context. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential invocation path: scope, filters, and the required preliminary call to crm_communication_cards. It does not describe the return format or pagination defaults, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the description is strong enough for correct selection and basic 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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the meaning of the core filters: channel, reply status (replied), and date range (to/from), and establishes that the id refers to a campaign or SDR search. However, it does not explain limit/offset semantics, and some parameter meaning is still left to inference.

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 clearly identifies the resource: every outbound touch for one campaign or SDR search, and lists the filtering dimensions (channel, reply status, date). It distinguishes itself from related tools like crm_communication_cards and crm_communication_thread by specifying this is the outbound-history view for a single campaign/SDR-search id.

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 an explicit prerequisite: use crm_communication_cards first to get the id. This tells the agent the required setup before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for the main use case.

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