Check For Replies

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it sends nothing, reads structured thread data, matches by stable member_id, and guarantees a reply cannot cause a duplicate first touch. This meaningfully clarifies side effects and idempotency beyond the idempotentHint annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the safety-critical 'Sends nothing' statement. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral guarantee or scope restriction, and no sentence feels redundant or filler.

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 covers the tool's purpose, matching logic, scope restrictions, side effects, and idempotency behavior. An output schema exists for return values, so the remaining details are sufficiently complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'scrolls' and 'campaign' adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the Sales Navigator inbox and mark leads who replied.' It also clarifies the exact matching mechanism and scope, which distinguishes this from generic messaging tools. The intent is unmistakable and would let an agent select it correctly.

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 gives clear context: only leads this server recorded a send for are considered, and conversations messaged by hand elsewhere are ignored. This helps an agent know when not to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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