list_outreaches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists emails, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no outreaches exist. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values (e.g., format of listed emails), error conditions, or usage context, leaving gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results or handle edge 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., filtering by jobApplicationId with pagination) or provide examples. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('outreach emails'), specifying they are 'sent to recruiters and referrers.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_outreach' (which creates) and 'get_application_recruiters' (which focuses on recruiters for an application), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_applications' or 'list_interviews' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing outreaches), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_application_recruiters' or 'get_application_referrers' that might retrieve related data. Usage is implied by the resource name alone.

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