validate_outreach_payload

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the concrete rule set being enforced, which is genuinely useful, but it never says what happens on a violation (throw, return a list, block sending), whether the call is read-only, or whether it mutates the payload.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the gate label first and the rule list after, with no filler. Dense but readable; it could be split so the outcome of a failed check is surfaced rather than crammed into the rule list.

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?

For a 6-parameter validator with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks the result contract: pass/fail shape, list of violations, and whether the caller should abort the send. The input side is reasonably covered by the enumerated rules, but the outcome side is missing.

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 0%, so the schema gives only names and types. The description implicitly maps most inputs to rules — recipient_email via the info@/careers@ check, body/subject via the payload and {first_name} brace check, headline and company_name via the mismatch check. It still does not clarify which params are required, how contact_name relates to the brace check, or accepted formats.

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?

States a specific verb (checks/validates) and resource (candidate email/DM payloads) and enumerates the exact rules applied: generic aliases, unreplaced braces, em-dashes, headline-to-company mismatches. The 'Hard Pre-Send Quality Gate' framing makes the intent unmistakable, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling prepare_linkedin_outreach_for_approval.

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?

'Pre-Send' implies the tool is invoked before dispatching outreach, which gives implied timing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not condition, no statement of what to do with a failing payload, and no named alternative among the siblings.

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