hire_echo_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool starts a campaign, returns a job_id, and that the agent performs specific actions. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., email sending costs), idempotency, or failure behaviors.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary detail, but could benefit from a structured breakdown for complex parameters.

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 has nested objects and 5 parameters with only 40% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the campaign object structure, sender identity requirements, spending cap semantics, or callback_url usage. The output is mentioned as a job_id but no schema exists, so more detail would help.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. The description mentions the overall campaign process but does not add meaning to individual parameters like agent_id, sender_identity fields, or campaign.name/niche. The return value (job_id) is noted but not tied to any parameter.

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: hiring an Echo Agent to run an outreach campaign. It explicitly mentions key actions (finds leads, writes personalized emails, sends them) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_available_agents or get_job_status.

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 initiating an outreach campaign but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use control_job or rate_job). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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