crm_search_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does but omits important traits such as case sensitivity, pattern matching semantics (substring vs regex), scope within a module, or return format. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 that conveys the core purpose and usage without unnecessary words. It earns its place completely.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and schema coverage is high. However, the lack of output schema and no behavioral details (e.g., return values, pagination, error conditions) leaves some ambiguity. It is minimally viable but not thorough.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter examples from the schema (e.g., 'disposition', 'status') but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify how the search_term interacts with the pattern matching.

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 'Search fields by name pattern' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the use case with examples ('disposition', 'status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_get_module_fields (which lists all fields) or crm_semantic_field_search (which implies semantic search).

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 phrase 'use to find specific fields' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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