hires_list_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it returns 'outbound messages only (sent and scheduled), not received,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also hints at use cases (pending queue, delivery history) that inform the agent about the data's nature. However, it does not mention pagination limits or response structure, but these are partially covered by the schema parameters.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. It is concise with no filler, and the second sentence adds practical usage context without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job indicating what the tool returns (outbound messages) and the context (cold outreach monitoring). It does not explain the response format, but for a list operation with well-described parameters, this is sufficient. The description covers the key aspects of what and why, making it complete enough for most use cases.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. It references the 'mail account' concept, aligning with from_account_id, but does not enhance understanding of pagination or filters beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List messages sent or scheduled from a specific mail account.' It specifies the resource (messages), the action (list), and the scope (outbound from a mail account), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_list_candidate_messages that likely focus on candidate-specific messages.

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?

The description provides practical context: 'Useful for monitoring cold outreach campaigns — check pending queue, delivery history, and plan next sends.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The use case is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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