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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and explicitly states 'NOTHING IS SENT,' which is the most critical behavioral guarantee for a preview operation. It also describes the output and prescribes a safe call-first flow. It does not discuss credits or broader side effects, but the main non-sending behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the safety-critical warning 'NOTHING IS SENT' is front-loaded and every clause contributes essential information.

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 3-param tool with no output schema, it provides the essential purpose, output, and safety context, and names the required semantic anchor (the search). The only substantive missing piece is sender_mode behavior, so it is near-complete but not fully comprehensive.

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 compensate for documenting parameters. 'This search' maps to search_id and 'per channel' explains channels, but sender_mode is left entirely unexplained—a meaningful gap for an optional but important 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?

States a concrete verb/resource: show what would happen if SDR outreach is launched for a given search, with recipient counts per channel. This clearly distinguishes it from sdr_launch_outreach, which actually performs the launch.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS call first and surface the counts to the user.' It does not formally name the alternative launch tool, but the preview/launch distinction is strongly implied by the title and sibling tool set.

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