0nMCP — Universal AI API Orchestrator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'add a note' without mentioning permissions, reversibility, whether it appends to existing notes, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool is relatively simple, but the description lacks essential context: it does not mention return values, requirements (e.g., existing contact), or any behavioral details. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for 'body' or 'contactId' and the description does not explicitly define them. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory and the phrase 'add a note' implies that 'body' is the note content and 'contactId' is the target contact. This adds partial meaning beyond the raw 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 action (add) and the resource (a note to a CRM contact). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like add_contact_tags, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other contact-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context (e.g., contact must exist). There are no usage instructions or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies mutation ('Add tags') but does not specify whether tags are appended to existing tags or replace them, or whether the contact must already exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that is efficient and directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted information or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters, the description is minimal but incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain return behavior, side effects, or edge cases. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke confidently, especially as a mutation 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?

The schema has no descriptions for the parameters (coverage 0%), and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'tags' and 'contact' but does not explain that contactId is the unique identifier or that tags is an array of strings.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('tags') with a clear scope ('to a CRM contact'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_contact_note and update_contact, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other contact-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of creating a contact, but omits critical behavioral details like whether duplicate email addresses are rejected, whether the operation is idempotent, any authentication requirements, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is efficiently front-loaded and free of unnecessary words, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention return values, error handling, duplicate detection, or other behaviors essential for an agent to anticipate the tool's effects. The brief description leaves many operational questions unanswered.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description fails to compensate by elaborating on any of the five parameters (email, phone, firstName, lastName, tags). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no context about formats, constraints, or how parameters relate to the creation process.

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 'Create a new CRM contact' uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('contact'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_contact, get_contact, and search_contacts. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as updating existing contacts (update_contact) or searching for contacts (search_contacts). It also does not mention any prerequisites or contexts where this tool is the appropriate choice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Create', which is already in the tool name, and does not mention side effects, required fields, or potential errors. The agent gets no information about mutation, permissions, or reversibility beyond what is obvious from the verb.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no excess wording, which is positive for conciseness. However, it is under-specified for a create tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. It is appropriately short but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides zero contextual detail. It does not mention typical use cases, behavior, or what constitutes success. This is extremely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially without parameter guidance.

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 adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema lists parameter names but no descriptions, and the description does not explain required fields (name, pipelineId, stageId) or the meaning of monetaryValue. The agent is left with only parameter names to infer semantics, which is a significant gap.

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 action 'Create' and the resource 'opportunity/deal', which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like search_opportunities or create_contact. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create an opportunity instead of a contact), nor any prerequisites or context. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between create tools.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not mention permissions, return format, or any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a single sentence with no padding or redundancy, making it extremely concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It fails to explain return values, parameter formats, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, but it only hints at start/end times via 'date range' and entirely omits the calendarId parameter. This provides minimal meaning beyond the raw field names.

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 tool retrieves appointments within a date range, using the verb 'Get' and the resource 'appointments' with a temporal scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on contacts, conversations, and opportunities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or requirements. It simply states a basic function without contextual tips.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the operation is a list, implying a read-only behavior, but provides no details on return structure, pagination, or permissions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description tells the agent the tool returns a list of calendars but does not specify the fields or structure of calendar objects. This is a minor gap; however, for a simple list operation, it is largely adequate.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'all CRM calendars', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_appointments and get_contact.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_appointments. However, the resource name ('calendars') implies usage for calendar listing, providing only implicit context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose potential error behaviors (e.g., invalid ID), authorization requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or ambiguity.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the response looks like or how to handle non-existent contacts. Given its low complexity, the gap is moderate; it does not inspire confidence in error handling or return structure.

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?

The schema defines a single 'contactId' string parameter with no description. The tool description adds the context that this is the contact's ID, which aligns with the parameter name. This provides marginal added meaning, but no additional detail such as format or uniqueness is given. Given the schema coverage is 0%, the description does not fully compensate.

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 'Get a CRM contact by ID' uses a specific verb (get) and clearly identifies the resource (CRM contact) and the means (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_contacts, which likely search by criteria rather than a unique identifier.

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 usage: use this tool when you have a contact ID and need the full contact record. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_contacts for query-based retrieval, so it stops at implied usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'List all custom fields'—the 'list' implies read-only operation, but it does not mention safety, auth requirements, pagination, or return value structure. This is minimal and lacks the depth expected for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

For a simple no-input list operation, the description is mostly complete. The main shortcoming is the vague 'custom fields' without specifying the parent entity (e.g., contacts vs. opportunities), which would help an agent understand the returned data. Otherwise, the tool's simplicity allows a terse description.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description correctly implies that no arguments are needed, and there is no parameter information to elaborate further.

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 a verb ('List') and a resource ('all custom fields'), making the core function obvious. It distinguishes from sibling getters by naming a unique resource, though 'custom fields' lacks explicit scope (e.g., contact vs. opportunity) which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, related use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and resource.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what 'location details' includes, whether it returns a single location or all locations, or any authentication requirements. This is minimal disclosure.

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 very concise at one sentence. It is appropriately short for a tool with no parameters, though it borders on under-specification.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize the tool. It does not clarify what 'location details' refers to, which could be ambiguous. For a simple tool, this might suffice, but the ambiguity warrants a lower score.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (vacuously). According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate as there are no parameter semantics to explain.

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 tool retrieves CRM location details with the verb 'Get'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource 'location' is distinct enough within the CRM context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_contact or get_appointments. The description lacks any contextual or preferential information.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'List all,' which conveys a read action but provides no details about pagination, response structure, safety, or potential performance implications.

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?

A single, concise sentence conveys the entire purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description is adequately complete: no input schema parameters exist and the return content is implicitly clear ('pipelines and stages'). However, the lack of an output schema and any behavioral notes slightly limits completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters (none exist). A baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 action (List) and the resource (CRM pipelines and stages). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on pipelines, which no other sibling mentions.

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 use case is implied by the purpose—one would call this to see all pipelines and stages—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or mention of downstream uses such as retrieving pipeline IDs for opportunity-related operations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists searchable fields and omits important behaviors such as match logic, pagination, default limit, and return structure. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, delivering the core information with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise.

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 and no annotations, the description is expected to provide more context. However, it lacks information about return values, search behavior, edge cases, or default settings, making it incomplete for reliable tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially clarifies the 'query' parameter by mentioning name, email, or phone, but the 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained. The description fails to provide meaningful semantics for both parameters.

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 'search', the resource 'CRM contacts', and the specific searchable fields (name, email, phone). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_conversations and search_opportunities.

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 usage for contact search but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_contact or search_conversations. There are no exclusions or alternative references, leaving the when-to-use scenario partially implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination, result limits, required permissions, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool's name suggests.

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 concise and free of fluff, but it is under-specified. It is a single short phrase that does not provide enough detail to be appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. While every word earns its place, the overall content is insufficient.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters, expected return values, or any operational context. This tool is not adequately documented for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has two parameters (limit, contactId) with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain the meaning, format, or behavior of these parameters. Since schema descriptions are absent and the description offers no compensation, the agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters correctly.

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 'Search CRM conversations' clearly identifies the action (search) and the resource (CRM conversations). It is distinguished from sibling tools like search_contacts and search_opportunities by the resource type. However, it lacks any additional scope or filtering context, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level bar.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention criteria, prerequisites, or any exclusions. The sibling list contains similar search tools, but no comparative or situational context is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Search', which implies read-only, but does not explicitly state safety, return format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise phrase with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is arguably too minimal to be fully useful. Structure is clean, earning a 4.

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 tool has two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only states the basic function, leaving out parameter semantics, return value, and usage context. Given the complexity and lack of structured information, this is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (query, pipelineId) with zero description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, failing to explain what query represents or how pipelineId filters results. The schema itself provides no descriptions, so the description must compensate but does not.

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 'Search CRM opportunities/deals' clearly identifies the action (search) and the resource (opportunities/deals). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_contacts and search_conversations by specifying the target object.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention what kinds of searches are supported, whether to use this for deals vs opportunities, or when to use search_contacts or get_pipelines instead.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intended effect ('send an email') but does not reveal whether the action is permanent, whether any record is created, what authentication or permissions are needed, or what happens after sending. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with zero filler words. It is front-loaded and efficient, but it is perhaps too sparse to fully support tool selection.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks guidance on side effects, when to use the tool, and expected return values, making it difficult for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly in varied contexts.

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 adds no parameter-specific context. Although parameter names like 'contactId', 'subject', and 'htmlBody' are self-explanatory, the description does not explain any formatting requirements, precedence, or how the parameters relate to the email being sent.

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 action ('Send') and the resource ('an email') with a target ('to a contact'). It is a specific verb+resource combination, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'send_message' or indicate how email differs from other messaging channels.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_message' or how to decide between email and other communication methods. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only restates the action 'Send a message' without disclosing side effects, permissions, delivery guarantees, or failure modes. It adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action verb, containing no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a 4-parameter, multi-channel tool, making it borderline between appropriate terseness and insufficient detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a competing sibling tool, the description is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool safely. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only lists the three channels, which overlaps with the 'type' enum, but provides no explanation of 'contactId', 'subject', or 'message' semantics or optionality.

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 action ('Send') and resource ('message'), and enumerates supported channels (Email, SMS, WhatsApp), which specifies scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'send_email' tool, so it falls short of full distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'send_email', nor when to prefer one channel over another. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references, which is a significant gap given the overlapping sibling.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation but does not state whether partial updates are allowed, whether special permissions are required, or what happens when the contactId does not exist. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about side effects or error conditions.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it is perhaps too terse, though that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one. For the small amount of content it has, it is well-structured.

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 tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only offers 'Update a CRM contact'. This is completely inadequate for the agent to understand return values, update semantics, required fields, or edge cases. It fails to provide necessary context for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 mentions no parameters at all. The schema lists five string fields, but the description fails to clarify any semantics such as which fields are commonly updated together or whether all fields are optional beyond contactId. The description adds no value to the parameter understanding.

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 'Update' and the resource 'CRM contact', making the tool's primary function evident. It distinguishes from siblings like create_contact and get_contact, though it doesn't provide additional context about which details can be updated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_contact or add_contact_note. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make an update necessary.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning a summary and a descriptor, but gives no details about side effects, errors, rate limits, or the meaning of the '.0n' descriptor. The lack of behavioral context is a notable gap for a tool that makes network calls.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It would be scored higher if not for the confusing '.0n' term, which hinders clarity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description needs to be more thorough. It does not explain the structure of the account summary, the meaning of the connection descriptor, or error handling. The ambiguous '.0n' further reduces completeness.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description adds some value by enumerating valid service values. However, 'apiKey' is only described as 'API key' with no format or source guidance, and the prose does not explicitly map parameters to fields.

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 tool's function: verify an API key against a listed set of services and return an account summary plus a connection descriptor. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on contacts, opportunities, and messaging.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need to verify an API key for a listed service. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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