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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the default is draft-only and does NOT send, that a second call with confirm_send:true is required to send, the required scopes (`write` for draft, `send` for send), and that agent sending must be enabled on the tenant. This is exactly the safety-relevant behavior an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the critical default-no-send behavior, and efficiently sized for a complex tool. Loses a point for the low-value marketing line 'Es la forma de "dile el objetivo y Postari lo logra",' which earns no place.

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?

No output schema, but the description still explains the return artifact (a draft with preview_html), the send confirmation path, and the auth scopes. For a 13-parameter agentic tool this is nearly complete; error handling is left to the schema (e.g. 409 smart_list_not_sendable).

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including confirm_send and scheduled_at. The description reinforces the confirm_send workflow but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (lanza) and resource (campaña de correo) and clarifies it generates the email from a natural-language brief. This is clearly distinguishable from the launch-feature siblings (create_launch, get_launch, list_launches), which are a different resource.

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?

Explains the operative workflow: call it and get a draft by default, then call again with the same fields plus confirm_send:true (or scheduled_at) to actually send. Clear context for the two-step pattern, though it never names alternative siblings (e.g. send_transactional_email) or when not to use it.

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