prospect_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Changes nothing' is consistent without adding much new behavioral information. It does add the actionable detail that campaign_id falls back to the active campaign, which is a useful behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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 main behavior is stated in one sentence, followed by a compact Args list. Every line earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action choices and the key campaign fallback. Minor ambiguity remains around what happens when outreach_id is empty, but overall an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: action gets explicit enum-like values ('conversation' or 'timeline'), and campaign_id gets default-fallback semantics. outreach_id's 'Which outreach' is terse but sufficient to identify the parameter's role.

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 states a specific read verb, a single resource ('message thread with one prospect'), and an alternative view ('their timeline'), which clearly distinguishes it from the mutation/send siblings like send_message and update_contact. The 'Changes nothing' clause reinforces that this is a pure read operation.

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 read-only wording and the 'one prospect' scope imply when to choose this tool, but the description does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides context for usage (viewing a conversation or timeline) without explicit exclusions.

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