Next Outreach Batch

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses global dedupe by stable member_id, per-campaign status tracking, exclusion of already-messaged leads, and the free-vs-InMail-credit distinction. This is substantial behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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 short paragraphs, all information-dense with the main purpose front-loaded. The only slight redundancy is repeating the 'free to message' idea in the last paragraph, but nothing is wasted.

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 the output schema exists and annotations declare read-only, the description covers all essential call-time knowledge: eligibility, dedupe, campaign scoping, prerequisite enrichment, and the paid-lead toggle. No critical selection or invocation detail is missing.

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 all four parameters. The description adds useful context around open_profile_only and campaign/dedupe semantics, but it does not add meaning to limit or url_or_hash beyond what the schema provides.

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 first sentence, 'Leads eligible for a first message, best channel first,' crisply identifies the resource and selection intent. 'Read-only' plus the dedupe explanation clearly separates it from execution-style tools like run_outreach_batch and send_message.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Run enrich_leads first or this returns nothing') and explains the open_profile_only default/alternative behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to use instead for sending or follow-up, but the intended context is clear.

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