linkedin_compose_outreach

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, lowering the bar. The description adds substantial context: it returns a draft plus notes about missing information, has a 'no invented credentials' constraint, and produces an accurate factual base rather than finished prose. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence contributes: purpose, output format, and usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema and many optional parameters, the description covers the essential behavior: it drafts based on the real profile, returns a draft plus missing notes, and should be rewritten before sending. Combined with strong annotations, this is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 83%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose of identifier and highlights ('grounded in the real profile', 'no invented credentials') but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 drafts a personalised outreach message grounded in the user's real profile, with explicit mention of 'no invented credentials'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message by emphasizing it returns a draft to be rewritten before sending, not finished prose.

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 implies the use case (drafting an outreach message based on the profile) and instructs to rewrite for voice before sending, suggesting a follow-up send tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, so it is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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