list_outreach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing ordering, the default snippet behavior, the full-message option, and limits. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, but the use-case framing and query semantics strongly imply it. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short use-case list, and a clearly formatted parameter block. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

All four parameters are explained, usage scenarios are given, and an output schema exists so return formatting does not need to be described. The tool is a straightforward list query, and nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents each parameter: outcome values, target substring matching, limit defaults/maximum, and the full flag behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, which only gives types and defaults.

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 ('Query') and resource ('outreach ledger') and adds ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from write tools like log_outreach and record_outcome, and from get_outreach_stats which is about statistics.

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 explicitly lists when to use this tool: prior-contact checks, reviewing pending sends, and pulling recent messages for reflection. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use cases are concrete and helpful enough to guide selection.

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