draft_email

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the fetching behavior when prospect_url is provided and the output components. But it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error handling, which would add completeness.

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 three sentences with a clear structure: what it does, a key usage tip, and a benefit. It avoids redundancy, though the benefit clause could be tighter.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should enumerate all parameters and edge cases. It covers outputs and prospect_url well, but other parameters are ambiguous, and there is no mention of required fields beyond the schema. Overall, it is not fully complete.

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 coverage is only 43%, and the description adds meaningful guidance for prospect_url (fetch and personalize). However, it leaves site_name, campaign_type, and prospect_name undefined, and does not explain tone beyond the enum. The description only partially compensates for the schema's low 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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate an outreach email draft.' It enumerates the return fields (subject, HTML body, plain-text body, spam score), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_draft or find_email. The resource is specific and actionable.

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 provides clear usage context: for drafting outreach emails, with a strong recommendation to pass prospect_url for personalization. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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