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 action ('Search') without disclosing behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), or what happens on errors. It doesn't add meaningful context beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or provide enough detail for effective tool use, especially for a search operation with multiple object types and filtering options.

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 must compensate but only mentions 'filters' generically. It doesn't explain the six parameters (e.g., objectType, filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their purposes, leaving them undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('CRM objects'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, etc. It mentions 'filters' which hints at the input schema but lacks specificity about what types of objects can be searched.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_search_companies or crm_list_objects. The description implies a general search capability but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with other search tools in the sibling list.

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