send_outreach

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It states the email will be sent from the user's configured email, a meaningful detail. But it does not mention irreversibility, possible failure modes, or whether sent emails are logged, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, starts with the action, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and target, the second clarifies the sender.

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 send-action tool, the description covers the core purpose and the key behavioral constraint (configured email). It lacks details about expected response or side effects, but the lack of an output schema and the simple parameter set make this mostly sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described (e.g., contactId includes the source functions). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Send an outreach email to a recruiter or referrer for a job application.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_to_job (formal application) and list_outreaches (viewing sent outreach).

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 establishes the context (outreach for a job application) and the contactId parameter description explicitly points to get_application_recruiters or get_application_referrers as sources. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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