crm_customer_health_risk

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

The description fully discloses that it combines product usage, support tickets, billing, and CRM activity into a 0-100 score with top 3 risk drivers and recommended actions. With no annotations provided, this provides sufficient behavioral context for the agent to understand the tool's function and output.

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 three sentences plus an Args section, front-loaded with the core action and output. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient without unnecessary detail.

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 (integrating multiple sources for a score) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, inputs, output format, and behavioral traits. No critical gaps for agent usage.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context to each parameter: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'account_id' is the CRM account ID, and 'lookback_days' is the activity window. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states that the tool scores post-sale customer health and surfaces churn risks, combining multiple data sources into a score. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'crm_lead_qualification' which focuses on pre-sale leads.

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 evaluating existing customers' churn risk by detailing the inputs and output. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'customer_success_churn_risk_scan' or 'crm_assess_pipeline'.

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