cold_pitch

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not count against the monthly draft limit, a useful billing behavior. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits such as AI generation, storage, or read/write nature, which limits full transparency.

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 four sentences, each contributing distinct information: clear purpose, differentiation from inbound, stylistic guidance, and billing note. No redundancy or filler, achieving high conciseness.

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 simple text generation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context. It could mention the output format (a draft email) but the name and description make that obvious. It is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that the 'ask' parameter defaults to 'a 15-minute call' and provides stylistic guidance for the overall email. This extra context lifts the score above baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Write a cold outbound pitch email' and identifies the resource as a potential client who hasn't contacted you. It explicitly distinguishes from 'inbound proposal work' and sibling tools like 'cold_pitch_follow_up', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (for proactive business development to non-contact clients) and contrasts it with inbound proposals. It also provides stylistic guidance (short, specific, single easy ask) and a billing hint (doesn't count against draft limit). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is sufficient for clear usage.

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