crm_get_person_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful scope boundary by noting that company master data stays in the external CRM, but it does not explain authorization needs, rate limits, or what 'compact' and 'source-linked' mean in practice.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is compact, though some of its density comes from vague jargon rather than precise detail.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what 'context' includes and how the domain parameter changes the result. It does not, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or the effect of domain from the definition.

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 for two undocumented parameters. It clarifies that personId is a 'stable person ID', which is helpful, but it leaves the domain enum (business/personal/unknown) completely unexplained and adds no detail about how domain affects 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 states a verb+resource ('Get ... context for a stable person ID'), which is clearer than the name alone. However, 'compact source-linked LinkedIn channel context' is vague about what data is actually returned, and it does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like linkedin_get_connection_status, crm_get_thread, or crm_search_people.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many CRM and LinkedIn siblings. The clause about the company master remaining in the external CRM hints at a boundary but does not state when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives.

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