industry_research_send_research_email_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool sends an email with specific content, but lacks behavioral details such as whether it requires permissions, is idempotent, handles failures, or modifies state. The basic function is clear, but deeper traits are missing.

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 a single concise sentence (146 characters) that front-loads the verb 'Sends' and efficiently conveys the tool's action and content. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate. It explains the email content but omits behavioral context (e.g., failure modes, usage, output variable purpose). For a 3-parameter tool with one required, more completeness is needed.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already describes report_id and email adequately; the description's mention of email content is about the output, not parameters. The required output_variable_name parameter is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 sends an industry research report as a formatted email, mentioning specific sections (Market Overview, Key Players, personalized implications teaser). It distinguishes from the sibling tool industry_research_generate_research_action, which likely generates the report.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage after generating a report via the report_id default value, but does not state prerequisites, when not to use, or alternative tools.

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