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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call assembles briefing material (facts, writing rules, prior emails, remaining daily capacity), which is useful context about what comes back. However the terms are unexplained jargon, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, but it is telegraphic and noun-heavy rather than front-loaded with a clear action. The colon-separated jargon list forces the reader to decode terms like 'feiten' and 'ruimte_vandaag'.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the briefing contains, and it does so only as an unlabeled list of cryptic Dutch terms. For a preparation tool that returns multiple sections (facts, writing rules, earlier mails, daily capacity), an agent gets no sense of structure, ordering, or how to use each part.

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% and the single parameter already documents that campagne_id comes from the script and should be omitted for follow-ups only. The description's 'campagne of werkvoorraad (met actieve_campagnes)' echoes that distinction but adds no new syntax or meaning, so the 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?

The description says this is the 'start of an outreach script' and then lists payload elements (campaign or work queue, facts, writing rules, earlier emails, ruimte_vandaag). That conveys a preparation/briefing tool, but the verb is vague and the list of jargon terms reads more like return fields than a statement of purpose. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as crm_mail_te_schrijven, crm_mail_stijl or crm_mail_concept.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance in the description; the only routing hint ('weglaten voor alleen follow-ups') lives in the schema, not the description. An agent cannot tell from the description when to call this versus the other mail-related siblings.

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