Generate Outreach Pitch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds crucial context: 'This tool does NOT send anything — it only drafts text for you to review and send yourself.' It also discloses validation behavior: 'Returns a validation error if friction_point is missing or too short — this tool refuses to draft a pitch with nothing specific to say.' These details go well beyond the structured metadata.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples, error handling) and front-loads the core purpose. Despite its length, every section earns its place by providing necessary operational detail for a tool with a specialized framework. No fluff or repetition of schema property names.

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 lacking an output schema, the description includes an inline JSON example of the return structure, covers error behavior, defines the framework's principles, and gives practical usage guidance. For a six-parameter tool with a specified framework, this description fully equips an agent to select and invoke it correctly without reference to external documentation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining the strategic role of key parameters, e.g., category 'determines which authority/experience line is used' and friction_point should be 'pulled from leadgen_enrich_company's matched_signals or crawled content.' It also warns that 'generic friction points make for generic (worse) pitches,' adding guidance not present in 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's function: 'Drafts two personalized outreach email variants for a qualified lead' using a specific framework. It distinguishes itself from pipeline siblings (discovery, enrichment, scoring, contact-finding, lead management) by focusing on content generation, not data retrieval or lead manipulation.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when: you've scored a lead as "hot" and identified its top missing/matched signal' and 'Don't use when: you haven't identified a real, specific friction point yet... go back to leadgen_enrich_company first.' This gives clear when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and points to the appropriate alternative tool.

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