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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the tool's safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral context by stating that it returns the full schema (objects, fields, kanban), which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotations and provides a clear expectation of the tool's output.

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 model of conciseness: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by an explicit call-to-action. Every word serves a purpose, and the bolded 'CHAME ISTO PRIMEIRO' adds useful emphasis without clutter.

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 describe-type tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential information: what is described (schema), the granularity (fields with properties), and the intended usage pattern (call first). The only gaps are the unexplained 'account' parameter and lack of detail on output format, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the descriptive power of the annotations.

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 one optional parameter 'account' that is completely undocumented. The description does not explain what 'account' refers to or how it affects the output. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but it remains silent about this parameter, leaving the agent guessing.

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 what the tool does: it describes the CRM schema including objects and their fields. It specifies the scope (contact, company, deal, custom) and details (key, type, required, options, relationships) and distinguishes itself as a discovery tool rather than a data manipulation tool. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like crm_list_objects or crm_get_object by focusing on schema introspection.

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 explicitly instructs the user to call this tool first before creating or reading records, establishing a clear usage pattern. It uses an imperative 'CHAME ISTO PRIMEIRO' to signal priority, and the context of when to use it (before any create/read operations) is unambiguous. Although it does not name alternative tools, it effectively communicates the recommended sequence.

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