Group Twenty CRM records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only' which is redundant but confirms safety. It also mentions group_by syntax and optional aggregation, adding some behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning alternatives) but is not verbose.

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 tool with 7 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is very minimal. It lacks examples, syntax details, and guidance on usage patterns, which is inadequate for a complex grouping/aggregation 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?

Schema coverage is 71% (5 of 7 parameters described). The description itself does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for coverage.

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 (Group and optionally aggregate), the resource (records), and the syntax (group_by syntax). It distinguishes from sibling tools like twenty_list_records by specifying grouping and aggregation capabilities.

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 read-only usage but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or advise when to use this over a simple listing. More guidance would improve decision-making.

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