crm_get_complete_disposition_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for safety and behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose potential large payloads, pagination, errors, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word contributes to the core meaning without any fluff or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain what 'disposition data' is, how module_name affects results, what the return structure looks like, or why include_dependent_fields matters. Users cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters include descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete disposition data'), and mentions inclusion of Global Set values and dependent fields, providing some scope. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like crm_get_global_set_values or crm_get_dependent_fields, and 'disposition data' is jargon that is not defined.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it should be used instead of crm_get_global_set_values, crm_get_dependent_fields, or crm_extract_complete_picklist_hierarchy for specific use cases. The context of use is only implied by the name.

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