Outreach target finder

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description adds that the tool runs a gap analysis, filters platform/CDN noise, scores by authority, and has a cost model. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (3 sentences plus a usage note) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides essential information about how the tool works and its usage.

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 presence of an output schema (which presumably details return values), the description covers the algorithm, filtering, scoring, and cost. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and its inputs.

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 defines each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the overall algorithm (ranking, filtering) and the purpose of enabling options, which goes beyond the schema.

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 runs a gap analysis and ranks results into priority and secondary based on competitor linking patterns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gap_analysis and backlinks by focusing on outreach target generation.

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 provides context by calling it 'the warm-outreach play' and recommending 2-3 competitors. It also mentions costs (gap job + backlinks calls). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use.

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