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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — live CRM requests make the call slow and it can be refused if portal access was revoked — but says nothing about per-section request cost beyond the schema, pagination, or response shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then return contents, then the read-only/alternative routing, then the latency/error caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the list of reference entities overlaps with what the sections enum already conveys.

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?

No output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does: it explains what comes back (reference data plus saved mapping, mirroring the settings form) and the specific failure mode. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (crm, quiz_id, sections, deal_category_id) are already documented in the schema. The description's enumeration of field groups loosely mirrors the sections enum but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: CRM reference data (lead/deal/contact/company fields, pipelines with stages, users, types) plus the mapping already saved on the quiz. It also separates itself from the write-side siblings by name (manage_quiz_crm_mapping / manage_quiz_amocrm_mapping), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says the tool only reads and names the two alternatives for editing, plus tells the agent how to pick between them via the mapping_tool field in the response. That is when-to-use and when-not-to-use with a concrete disambiguation rule.

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