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 and does add key context: this is a preview and the Signal Search itself remains untouched. It does not explicitly state 'no changes are made' or describe side effects, but 'what would happen' plus the scope caveat adequately covers the preview nature.

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 short sentences with no obvious fluff, and the crucial caveat 'Signal Search ITSELF is NOT deleted' is included. The first sentence is somewhat generic, but the overall description is front-loaded and easy to consume.

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 low-complexity preview tool with one required parameter, the core behavior and scope are present. However, the description does not define what the returned preview looks like, does not document search_id, and does not explicitly say there are no side effects. These gaps leave moderate room for agent uncertainty.

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's only parameter, search_id, is undocumented and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never explains that search_id identifies the signal search whose outreach campaign is being previewed, so an agent must infer its meaning from the parameter name and context.

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?

Together with the title, the purpose is clear: this tool previews deleting an SDR outreach campaign. The second sentence explicitly distinguishes it from search deletion by stating the Signal Search itself is NOT deleted. However, 'Show what would happen' alone is vague and relies on the title to convey the specific action.

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 implies this is a dry run ('Show what would happen') and clarifies the deletion scope ('only the outreach campaign'). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as sdr_delete_outreach for actual deletion or sdr_preview_delete_search for a search-scoped preview, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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