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

Annotations already declare a non-readOnly, non-destructive write, and the description usefully adds that no email is actually dispatched ('Nothing is sent'), which is real behavioral context. However it says nothing about whether the draft persists, whether it overwrites an existing draft, or what permissions are required.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the side-effect caveat immediately after. No filler, though it is terse enough that it under-serves the 7-parameter signature.

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 7-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers the core outcome (draft created, nothing sent), but an agent still can't tell how to disambiguate this from prepare_outreach_draft or how generationMode interacts with the template.

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 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names only 'template' and 'sender' (templateId, senderIdentityId) and ignores projectId, siteId, prospectId, contactId entirely. Worse, it says the email comes 'from a template' while generationMode defaults to 'ai', leaving the key mode parameter unexplained and its default counterintuitive.

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 and resource: writing a first outreach email to a prospect's contact, composed from a template and sender. It clearly differentiates itself from send/regenerate siblings via 'Nothing is sent', but does not distinguish itself from the similarly named prepare_outreach_draft or update_outreach_draft.

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. The presence of prepare_outreach_draft, get_outreach_draft_options, and create_outreach_template as siblings makes the workflow ordering ambiguous, and the description offers nothing to disambiguate which step to call first.

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