crm_get_classification

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that unknown values remain explicit and that the external CRM is authoritative, but it does not explain missing-thread behavior, response shape, or evidence contents.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The retreival action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds important scope about authoritative ownership rather than padding.

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 simple read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is partly complete. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it leaves the meaning of threadId and the detailed form of returned "labels and evidence" unspecified.

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?

The only parameter, threadId, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains that classification is retrieved for a specific thread. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter, but it does not.

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 names a specific verb, "Retrieve," and the resource, "LinkedIn channel relationship labels and evidence." It is clearly a read operation and distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling crm_set_classification, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It gives implied usage context by saying the external company CRM owns the authoritative pipeline, suggesting this tool is for LinkedIn-sourced relationship labels rather than authoritative company pipeline data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of crm_get_thread or other CRM retrieval tools.

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