suggest_next_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which cover safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details: hosted accounts receive a dashboard link and snapshot card, the link should be relayed due to client rendering, and recommendations follow an explicit priority order. 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 appropriately sized, around 70 words, and front-loads the core purpose. The hosted-accounts caveat is necessary operational detail. There is slight redundancy between 'Analyzes all active campaigns' and 'Analyzes all active if empty,' but it does not hurt clarity.

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 one-parameter, read-only suggestion tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input semantics, prioritization logic, and output hints (dashboard link and snapshot card). It could more concretely describe the structure of the returned recommendation, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 fully does for the only parameter: 'campaign_id: Focus on a specific campaign. Analyzes all active if empty.' This defines both the parameter's meaning and its empty-value behavior, which is complete and actionable.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Suggest the best next action for your outreach.' It further specifies scope by saying it analyzes all active campaigns and prioritizes by impact. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like scheduler or check_replies, so it stops short of full sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains behavior and the campaign_id parameter, but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as scheduler or check_replies, nor does it give any exclusion criteria. The only instruction, about relaying the dashboard link, is post-invocation rather than selection guidance.

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