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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'nothing is sent' and leaks the return field name `say`, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it does not explain what the draft is based on or what inputs shape it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key constraint. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It hints at the `say` return field but leaves all parameter semantics and sibling differentiation unaddressed.

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% across three parameters (contact_id required, plus job_title and application_id). The description adds no meaning for any of them - it never mentions what contact_id identifies or why job_title/application_id matter - so it fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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 specific verb+resource (draft a note to a contact) and immediately constrains scope with 'A draft only; nothing is sent.' It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like confirm_note, referral_note, or reply_to_employer, so the agent must infer which note tool applies.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings such as confirm_note, referral_note, and reply_to_employer in the list, the definition should say when a draft_outreach is the right call, but leaves this entirely to inference.

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