crm_get_custom_view_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions error handling ('If view_id not found') and the nature of the output ('detailed metadata'), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, or full response structure. The 'get' in the name implies read-only, but additional behavioral details are limited.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Common Pattern, Error Recovery), each contributing meaningful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses formatting to enhance scannability.

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 two params and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contents (criteria, fields, sorting), the prerequisite workflow, and error recovery. It lacks explicit detail on output structure or edge cases, but is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions), but those are minimal. The description adds value by linking custom_view_id to crm_get_custom_views, but module_name receives no additional explanation beyond 'Name of the module'. This is consistent with the baseline for high schema coverage, with slight improvement.

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 action: 'Get detailed metadata for a specific custom view' and specifies contents (criteria, fields, and sorting). It distinguishes from sibling crm_get_custom_views by emphasizing 'specific' and requiring a custom_view_id, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides prerequisites ('Use crm_get_custom_views to identify target custom_view_id'), next steps, common patterns, and error recovery. This is the gold standard for usage guidance, clearly indicating when and how to use the tool relative to alternatives and follow-up actions.

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