crm_search_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, rate limits, or what format the results take. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complex search tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the search capabilities, result format, pagination, or how this differs from sibling search tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 and 6 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' accepts, how 'filterGroups' work, what 'properties' returns, what 'limit' controls, what 'after' is for pagination, or how 'sorts' functions. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 objects using filters' states the verb ('Search') and resource ('CRM objects'), but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what types of objects are searchable or how this differs from sibling search tools like crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, and crm_search_leads.

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 about when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling search tools (crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, crm_search_leads). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions for this general search tool.

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