record_outreach_with_inquiry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the returned fields, the two possible statuses based on mode, the requirement to resolve pre_send rows via update_outreach_status, the no-follow-up nature of pending_review, and the platform-channel footer exception.

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 long sentence but is front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause adds substantive detail about behavior, return values, or follow-up requirements. It is dense rather than wasteful, though it could be broken into clearer sentences.

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 and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining return values, status semantics, follow-up obligations, and footer behavior. It is not fully complete because it omits parameter semantics for several fields and does not mention error conditions or permissions, but it covers the most critical operational context.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does add meaning for channel (platform gets no footer) and body (footer appended), but it does not explain subject, prospectId, or variantId beyond what the schema already provides, leaving a significant 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reserve an outreach log row for a form / SNS DM / platform channel before submission.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from send_email_and_record by explicitly stating that email should use the other tool, and it also conveys the unique pre-submission reservation role.

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 gives clear usage context: use before submission for form/SNS DM/platform channels, and explicitly directs email use to send_email_and_record instead. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling record_outreach tool, so it misses a full when-not/alternatives comparison, but the provided guidance is still strong.

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