send_outreach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends an email, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose critical traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'configured email' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and email source. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain contact IDs), and expected outcomes. The context signals indicate full schema coverage, but the description does not compensate for the missing behavioral and output information.

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 four parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or relationships between parameters like 'applicationId' and 'contactId'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Send an outreach email to a recruiter or referrer for a job application.' It specifies the verb ('send'), resource ('outreach email'), and target ('recruiter or referrer'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_outreaches' or 'update_application'.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions sending 'for a job application' and that the email is sent 'from your configured email.' However, it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing contact IDs from 'get_application_recruiters' or 'get_application_referrers'), and offers no alternatives or exclusions compared to siblings.

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