post_launch_check_in_email

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool generates a short email (under 120 words), does not count toward monthly draft limits, and has three specific goals. It does not mention output format or side effects, but for a content-generation tool this is sufficient.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and timing, then differentiates from siblings, explains goals, and lists parameters. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's output (a short check-in email with specific goals) and its usage context. It covers timing, content, and allowed parameters. Output format is not explicitly described, but the tool's nature as an email generator makes it implicit. Overall, sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the email, the timing window, and the rationale for optional fields (e.g., 'result_to_reference shows you've been paying attention'). This provides meaningful supplementary meaning.

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 writes a short check-in email sent 30-60 days post-launch, explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools (project_go_live_email, project_completion_email, upsell_email), and lists three specific goals. The verb 'Write' plus specific resource and timing make 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 specifies the exact use case (30-60 day post-launch window) and differentiates from three sibling tools by naming them and contrasting their timing/purpose. It provides implicit guidance on when to use (4-8 week window) but stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it.

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