show_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that hosted accounts receive a dashboard link and snapshot card, and that the link must be relayed because some clients show the image only to the model. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a useful relay caveat and parameter documentation without excessive padding. The conversational phrasing ('Ask how's my outreach anytime') is functional but slightly loose, keeping it from a 5.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the dashboard contents, hosted-account behavior, and parameter semantics. It does not describe the exact shape of stats or error cases, but these are minor for this simple read-only tool.

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 fully explain the parameter. It does: 'campaign_id: Show stats for a specific campaign. Shows all if empty.' This clarifies the optional single parameter's behavior and default semantics completely.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Show your outreach dashboard' with concrete contents like campaigns, stats, hot leads, and account health. It is more specific than the tool title but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'analytics' tool, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear usage context: the chat is the 'front door' to the dashboard and users can ask 'how's my outreach?' anytime. This implies broad, on-demand use but does not state when to prefer another tool or mention exclusions, so it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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