preview_deep_scanShow what would happen if you run deep_scan_agent. The scan is NOT executed. ALWAYS call this first and confirm the cost (15 credits) and duration with the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| company_name | No | ||
| company_website | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the scan is not executed, reveals the fixed cost of 15 credits, mentions duration, and mandates user confirmation. This covers the most important behavioral characteristics, though response content is not described.
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 two tight sentences with the purpose and the non-execution warning front-loaded. The mandatory workflow instruction is included without any filler or repetition.
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?
The description provides strong workflow context and safety-critical cost information, but it omits parameter semantics and any indication of what the preview response contains. Since there is no output schema or annotations, an agent still lacks important context for invoking the tool correctly end-to-end.
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 0%, and the description does not explain `id`, `company_name`, or `company_website`. An agent is left to guess what `id` refers to and how the optional fields affect the preview, so the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 verb and resource: 'Show what would happen if you run deep_scan_agent.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the actual scan with 'The scan is NOT executed,' which prevents confusion with the sibling tool deep_scan_agent.
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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'ALWAYS call this first and confirm the cost (15 credits) and duration with the user.' This tells the agent when this tool should be called relative to deep_scan_agent and what user-facing steps must follow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite consistently detailed descriptions, several tool pairs have unclear boundaries: `get_subscription_limits` and `get_agent_plan_limits` describe essentially the same agent-slot check, `crm_get_conversation` and `crm_communication_thread` both claim to return the full message thread, and `get_credit_usage_by_agent` vs `get_credit_usage_for_agent` differ only by preposition. At 149 tools, an agent will regularly misselect between these near-duplicates.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun with domain prefixes (`crm_*`, `sdr_*`) and a consistent `preview_*` family that maps cleanly to destructive/expensive actions. Deviations are minor but real: CRM deletes use the inverted `delete_crm_*` form while other CRM ops use `crm_*`, and credit-usage tools mix `by_agent`/`for_agent` prepositions.
149 tools is nearly three times the 50+ threshold the rubric treats as extreme, even though the platform genuinely spans agents, campaigns, audiences, CRM, SDR, billing, and connections. Many could be consolidated without losing capability — e.g. the 11 balance/credit-usage tools, the two LinkedIn-account listers, and the 15+ preview variants.
The surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD/lifecycle coverage for agents, campaigns, audiences, CRM leads/stages, and SDR searches, plus billing, analytics, and connection management. Destructive or costly operations all have preview/approval counterparts, so there are no dead ends. If anything the risk is over-coverage rather than gaps.