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

Annotations declare a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description notes header-injected workspace_id/user_id. It does not explain whether re-mapping an existing field overwrites it, how conflicts are resolved, or what the response contains. With annotations covering the mutation profile, this is adequate 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?

Tightly front-loaded: one sentence of purpose, one 'Use when' sentence with an example, one note on injected params. No waste, though the injected-header note is terse.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the write profile. But with 0% schema description coverage on five parameters, the description leaves key inputs (data_type, crm_specification_id, requiredness) undefined, which is thin for a creation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions canonical vs external field names and object type. It does not explain data_type, crm_specification_id, or that all 5 params default to null and are effectively required in practice — a significant gap for a 0% coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: mapping a Boomerang canonical field to the connected CRM's field name for a given object type. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling create_crm_prepared_statement and create_crm_specification.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' section names the prerequisite (after create_crm_specification) and the exact trigger condition (when a prepared statement's SELECT needs to reference a CRM-native field name that differs from the canonical name), with a concrete example.

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