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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the empty-result behavior ('Empty when no CRM is connected or nothing matched') and the shape of what is returned (workspace-chosen fields plus match rationale), which are genuinely useful traits not in the 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?

Two tight clauses with zero filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded before the empty-state caveat. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still conveys what comes back (matched CRM records, displayed fields, match reasoning) and the empty case. Nothing essential to calling this correctly 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents conversationId fully (including its `cnv_…` format and provenance). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('CRM records (Salesforce contacts, accounts or leads) matched to a conversation's customer'). No sibling tool provides CRM context, so an agent can distinguish this immediately from get_conversation or get_conversation_orders.

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 implies its use case (fetching CRM context for a conversation) but never states when to reach for it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, leaving the trigger to inference.

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