Draft outreach email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully disclose that a missing JEV_API_KEY triggers setup guidance, but it does not state whether the tool sends emails or only returns drafts, nor any other failure modes or side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the missing-key behavior is conveyed in a single additional sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 3-parameter drafting tool, the description covers the core output and a key error case. However, since there is no output schema, it could be more explicit about what a successful response contains, though 'Draft... email' strongly implies the returned drafts.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about kolHandle, offerDetails, or campaignDescription beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Draft') and the specific deliverable ('a first collaboration email and a follow-up for day 3'). This is distinct from the sibling tools search_kols and score_fit, which perform search and scoring rather than content generation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over search_kols or score_fit, nor any mention of prerequisites or placement in a workflow. The only conditional information is the missing-key behavior, which is not a usage guideline.

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