crm_smart_field_discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'optimized response format to reduce tokens and iterations,' which is vague and does not disclose concrete behaviors like read-only nature, response structure, or limitations. This is insufficient for an unannotated 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 sentence with no wasted words, but it starts with a redundant label 'Smart field discovery' that mirrors the tool name. It is appropriately sized but could use more substance.

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 no annotations, the description should clarify response format and usage context. It fails to explain what 'optimized response format' entails or how it differs from similar field-search tools, leaving a significant gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as default values or intent examples.

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 it 'finds fields based on intent,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like crm_search_fields or crm_semantic_field_search, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 description implies usage for intent-based field discovery and mentions token-efficiency, but does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not conditions. No guidance is given on when to choose this over other CRM field tools.

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