sdr_get_person_detailFull provenance for one person found by SDR: which hunter found them, what query fired, what signal triggered the pick, and the scoring breakdown. Use this to explain to a customer WHY a contact is in their list. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Person (persona) id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only, free,' which tells the agent there are no side effects and no cost, and it lists the data categories returned, which is substantial behavioral clarity for a simple read operation.
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 sentences: the first enumerates the returned provenance dimensions, the second gives the use case and cost/safety profile. No filler, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 a single fully-described parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still provides what an agent needs: what the tool returns, why to call it, that it is safe, and that it is free. There are no major gaps for correct invocation.
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?
There is only one parameter and the schema describes it fully as 'Person (persona) id,' giving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description reinforces that the id refers to a person found by SDR, but adds no new format or constraint information beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the resource ('one person found by SDR') and the exact provenance details returned: hunter, query, signal, and scoring breakdown. The title reinforces the purpose, and the description distinguishes this from the many SDR sibling tools by focusing on a single person's why-they-were-picked story.
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 gives a concrete use case: 'explain to a customer WHY a contact is in their list.' It doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the per-person provenance framing clearly separates it from listing, search-level, and stats tools.
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.