crm_assess_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'audits' and 'returns' a list, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, mention side effects, or describe behavior under edge cases (e.g., empty pipeline).

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and output flags, followed by a three-line parameter list. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy, front-loading the key action and result.

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 the tool's complexity (audit with output schema), the description explains what it does and parameter usage but lacks behavioral details (read-only guarantee) and usage context. The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is acceptable. Missing guidance on when to run this audit or expected outcome for clean pipelines.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds essential meaning: 'owner_email: Pipeline owner; empty = whole team' and 'min_amount_usd: Filter to deals above this amount' are clear. However, 'message: Free-text objective for the action' is vague and could be more specific about its purpose.

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 'Audit' and resource 'active sales pipeline', detailing exactly what issues are flagged (stalled deals, missing next-steps, optimistic close dates, stage-fit mismatches) and the output (prioritised action list). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like salesforce_pipeline_report which likely provides a standard report.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as crm_query_data or salesforce_pipeline_report. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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