availability_announcement

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the email's tone ('warm, non-desperate') and that it doesn't count against draft limits, but lacks details on potential constraints like rate limits or dependencies.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: first sentence defines the action, second provides rationale, third specifies constraints. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, audience, tone, word limit, nature of the ask, and billing exclusion. No output schema is needed given the straightforward email generation task.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by providing context on tone, word limit, and audience, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 generates an email to past clients about available capacity. It uses specific verbs ('Write') and resources ('email to past clients'), and is distinct from sibling tools like 'cold_pitch' or 'reactivation_email'.

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 advises use for past clients rather than cold pitching, providing context on when to use it. It mentions constraints like 'Under 120 words, one soft ask' and 'Does not count against your monthly draft limit', but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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