crm_get_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm whether it's safe, whether it requires authentication, what happens with invalid IDs, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't provide the behavioral context needed for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it maximally efficient in terms of word count.

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, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error conditions, or the meaning of any parameters. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use given the complexity of the input schema.

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 all 4 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'objectType', 'objectId', 'properties', or 'associations' mean. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at objectId, but doesn't explain the enum values for objectType, the purpose of properties filtering, or what associations returns. 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a single CRM object by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_list_objects (which lists multiple objects) and crm_search_objects (which searches by criteria rather than direct ID lookup). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the specific object types available (companies, contacts, etc.) that are defined in the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like crm_get_company, crm_get_contact, or crm_get_lead (which appear to be specialized versions), nor does it explain when to use this generic tool versus those specific ones. There's also no mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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