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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: that this is the authoritative external-send policy and that actual sends remain human-authorized, which shapes how an agent should act on the result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation and scope first, then the sibling distinction. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 no-argument read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the essential framing: what policy is read and how it relates to the outbound invitation flow. Only a small gap remains around whether reading it is a prerequisite step before prepare_outbound_invitation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail and there is nothing for it to compensate for.

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?

Specific verb 'Read' paired with a precise resource: 'the exact outbound communication and external-send policy'. It also explicitly separates this tool from the sibling prepare_outbound_invitation, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Implies the read-first workflow by contrasting with prepare_outbound_invitation ('only prepares') and stating 'sends stay human-authorized'. This gives clear context for when to consult the policy, though it does not explicitly say when not to call it or list other alternatives such as human_oversight_policy.

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