Outreach Status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the context that the tool returns aggregate counts and a remaining daily-cap value, but it does not disclose scoping details such as time window, status definitions, or cap behavior. This is adequate given annotation coverage but not rich.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and key outputs. There is no filler or repeated information from the title or schema, and the brevity is appropriate for a simple read-only aggregation tool.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly: the agent knows what it returns, that it can be filtered by campaign, and that it is non-mutating. It does not explain the exact meaning of 'daily cap' or the time window, but those details are likely covered by the output schema and are not necessary for making the call.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter 100%, including an explicit description: 'Restrict to one campaign. Omit for all.' The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Counts') and a clear resource/scope ('by status and channel'), plus an additional distinct metric ('remaining daily cap'). It is clearly not a mutation or search tool and reads as an aggregate reporting tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status tools like pipeline_status.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as pipeline_status, check_session_status, or next_outreach_batch. It does not state a use case like 'check outreach capacity before sending' and provides no exclusions or conditions.

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