find_and_pitch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the multi-step behavior, conditional job saving with queue and ECHO_API_KEY, and the demo behavior returning only drafts. However, it does not mention potential side effects like actually sending emails outside of demo mode or required permissions.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds conditional behavior. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description lacks crucial details. It omits parameter semantics for sources and location, does not describe output format beyond 'drafts only', and fails to mention error handling or prerequisites like authentication beyond ECHO_API_KEY.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains niche, category, and queue, but fails to describe sources, location, and the detailed sender object fields (e.g., meeting_options, scheduling_link). Key parameters are left undocumented, requiring agents to interpret from the schema alone.

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: 'One-shot personalized PR outreach' and enumerates the steps (discovers communities, extracts contacts, drafts emails). It distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_communities and draft_pr_outreach_for_contacts by combining them into a single action.

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 implies usage for a combined workflow but does not explicitly state when to use it versus using the individual sub-tools (e.g., discover_communities, extract_contacts_from_url). It provides context for different modes (queue vs. public demo) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative comparisons.

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