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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that real messages will be sent, that credits are spent per message, and that user approval is required. It stops short of discussing rate limiting, irreversibility, or async behavior, but the most consequential side effects are covered.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: what launches, what happens, and the mandatory precondition. The warning is placed after the effect but the overall structure is tight and easily scannable.

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 high-stakes tool that sends real messages and spends credits, the description covers the key safety gate and main side effects. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and five mostly undocumented parameters, an agent still lacks enough parameter-level detail to invoke it with full confidence.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only indirectly covers `channels` via 'emails and/or LinkedIn invites'. The required `search_id`, `sender_mode`, and the two daily limit parameters are left unexplained, leaving an agent to guess their meaning.

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 action ('Launch SDR outreach') and clearly defines the effect: contacts will start receiving emails and/or LinkedIn invites. It also distinguishes itself from preview/pause/resume siblings by explicitly noting that real messages are sent and credits are spent.

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 precondition: 'Only call after sdr_preview_launch_outreach and explicit user approval.' This tells the agent exactly when the tool is appropriate and implies that calling it earlier is wrong.

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