search_outreach_emails

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns email messages with status, open/click tracking, and content, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety or disclose rate limits, destructive potential, or other side effects. The word 'FREE' is ambiguous but suggests no cost.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately adds key return details. Every word adds value.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (email messages with status, open/click tracking, content). It does not explain pagination or result limits, but the parameters (page/per_page) cover that. Sibling tools are many, but the description's focus on outreach emails and sequence context provides sufficient differentiation.

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?

The input schema already describes all 5 parameters with clear filter purposes (e.g., 'Filter by sequence/campaign ID'). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, and with 60% schema description coverage, it moderately compensates by stating the tool returns email messages with tracking data, but not specific parameter combinations or usage tips.

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 searches outreach emails sent through Apollo sequences, with specific verb 'Search' and resource 'outreach emails'. It distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_activities or search_contacts by referencing Apollo sequences and mentioning return of tracking data.

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, such as search_activities or search_phone_calls. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context.

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