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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantial context: the inbound webhook URL 'contains a secret and is shown only on Settings -> Integrations -> CRM', 'never write or guess it', and the semantics of each inbound_mode (manual/automatic/automatic_pending) including that DataCRM is polled every 15 minutes.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the density is deliberate: error-code meanings and inbound_mode semantics are needed because there is no output schema. It is long and mixes output interpretation with behavioral guidance, but no sentence is pure repetition of the name or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly — field meanings, status values, error codes (invalid_token/unauthorized/missing_scopes/webhook_failed) and inbound_mode states are all decoded. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response 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% for the single optional 'fields' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description never references the field-selection parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, putting it at the baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the CRMs this account can keep in sync on its own') and enumerates the concrete providers (GoHighLevel, HubSpot, Pipedrive, DataCRM). It explicitly separates itself from siblings by stating 'This is different from Connectors, which are tools the AI agents use mid-chat.'

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?

It clearly frames this as an informational read and routes agents away from actions it cannot perform: 'Connecting, changing a token or a switch happens in Settings -> Integrations -> CRM; never ask for a token in chat.' It also gives an explicit not-this-one marker ('It is not the outgoing webhooks of Settings -> Webhooks'), though it doesn't name sibling tools like list_connectors directly.

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