crm_get_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid IDs. It mentions retrieving 'a single CRM object' but doesn't specify the return format or whether it includes all fields by default.

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 7 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, error handling, or how this tool relates to the many sibling CRM retrieval tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand proper usage.

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 for 4 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'objectType', 'objectId', 'properties', or 'associations' mean. The description doesn't mention that 'objectType' has specific enum values or that 'properties' and 'associations' are optional arrays for filtering/expanding results.

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 'Get' and resource 'single CRM object by ID', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling CRM tools like 'crm_get_company', 'crm_get_contact', or 'crm_get_lead', which appear to serve similar purposes for specific object types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'crm_get_company', 'crm_get_contact', and 'crm_list_objects', there's no indication whether this is a generic retrieval tool that supersedes specific ones or when each should be preferred.

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