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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it details one object and lists the specific attributes returned, which helps set expectations without contradicting 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 short, front-loaded sentences deliver the core purpose and scope with no filler. Every word adds value, and the sibling distinction is compactly integrated.

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 read-only detail tool with strong annotations and only two parameters, this description is largely complete: it states the operation, scope, and output content. The main gap is the undocumented parameter semantics, especially 'account', but overall the tool context is well covered.

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 should compensate for undefined parameters, but it does not explain the 'object' parameter format or the optional 'account' parameter at all. 'UM objeto' only weakly implies that 'object' selects the object, and 'account' is completely unaddressed.

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 ('Detalha') and resource ('UM objeto'), and enumerates the returned content: label, kanban, and all fields with key/type/required/options/relation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling crm_describe by calling itself a focused version.

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 phrase 'Versão focada do crm_describe' clearly positions this tool as the detailed single-object variant of crm_describe, giving the agent context for when to choose it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives.

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