build_email_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the sequence structure (3 emails on days 0, 3, 7), but does not mention output format, return values, side effects, permissions, or whether emails are actually sent or just generated. This is minimal disclosure, similar to the 'update_drive' example that scored 2.

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 that front-loads the core action and timing. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient to guide correct invocation. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return values, or any preconditions. The schedule detail is helpful but insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool without additional assumptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it mentions none. The input schema lists 'trade', 'business_name', 'city', and 'owner_name' with no descriptions, and the description provides no clue about what these parameters represent or how they are used. The agent is left without guidance, making this a critical gap.

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 with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('3-email outreach sequence'). It also specifies the schedule (day 0, 3, 7), distinguishing it from single-email generation tools like 'generate_cold_email'. The purpose is unambiguous and easy to grasp.

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 usage for creating a multi-email sequence, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over siblings such as 'generate_cold_email' or 'score_local_lead'. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. This is borderline between implied and no guidance, warranting a 3.

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