get_outbound_targets

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

The description discloses internal logic such as the use of a measured targeting priority, random exploration for a share of batches, server-side filtering by enabled channels and country, and the structure of the output (reachable total, split, mode, quota). This goes well beyond any annotations (none provided).

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 dense paragraph covering multiple aspects (ordering, filters, output details). It is not overly verbose but conveys a lot of information efficiently. Well-structured despite length.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return format (reachable total, split, mode, quota, and prospect fields). It also explains query parameters' effects and filtering logic, making it fairly complete for a get operation.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (limit and projectId). The tool description does not add significant extra meaning to these parameters beyond what is already in the schema, though it does imply their role in the overall process. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.

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 that the tool retrieves prospects due for outreach, specifying ordering, filtering, and output details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing its unique behavior (priority-based ordering, random exploration, server-side filters).

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 explains the tool's behavior (e.g., how prospects are ordered and filtered) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is implicit, but no explicit usage comparisons are made.

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