audit_spam_triggers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of hits, a 0-100 risk score, and a verdict, which is the key behavioral outcome. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive, but the audit nature implies no side effects.

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, information-dense sentence. It leads with the verb 'Audit' and efficiently lists trigger types and output structure without any extraneous words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what to audit, what triggers are checked, and what results are returned. No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter 'text' as the full outreach copy including the subject line (100% coverage). The description adds slight context by mentioning 'subject + body' but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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: it audits outreach copy (subject + body) for specific spam-filter triggers. It lists concrete trigger categories (flagged phrases, all-caps, exclamation marks, multiple links, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on spam trigger detection.

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 context: run this audit on outreach copy before sending. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on spam triggers makes the intended use clear.

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