crm_customer_health_risk

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

Annotations mark this as readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description presents the tool as a purely analytical scoring operation and says nothing about side effects or what may be modified or destroyed. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations and may mislead an agent into assuming this is a safe read-only call.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose and output format before listing arguments. The Args block is a bit redundant with the schema, but it is short and mostly earns its place by adding minimal semantics.

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 description covers the main inputs, data signals, and output, and an output schema exists. However, it omits the destructive/side-effect behavior implied by annotations, does not resolve the account_id required conflict, and offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over nearby alternatives. For a tool with this behavioral profile, these are meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add basic semantics (message as free-text objective, account_id as CRM account ID, lookback_days as activity window), but it also claims account_id is 'required' while the schema marks it optional with a null default, creating a direct contradiction. message is also vague about what 'the action' refers to.

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 and resource: 'Score post-sale customer health and surface churn risks.' It further specifies the output shape (0-100 score, top 3 risk drivers, recommended actions) and the data sources combined, which makes the tool's purpose distinct even among closely related CRM/customer-success siblings.

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 intended use is implied by 'Score post-sale customer health and surface churn risks,' but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative tools such as customer_success_churn_risk_scan or customer_success_health_score_report. An agent must infer when this tool is preferred.

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