crm_search_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a search operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or mention any behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no results. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search CRM objects'), though it could be more structured by hinting at key parameters. For its brevity, it communicates the basic intent clearly.

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, nested filter logic, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, pagination behavior, or how to interpret parameters like 'objectType' with its enum values. For a tool that likely returns a list of objects, more context is needed to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'filters' generically, which corresponds to one parameter (filterGroups), but doesn't explain the other 5 parameters (objectType, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their relationships. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 what constitutes a 'CRM object' and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling search tools (e.g., crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts). It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like crm_search_companies and crm_search_contacts that target specific object types, there's no indication whether this is a generic search that replaces those or when one might prefer this over more specific tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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