crm_sales_call_intelligence

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

Without annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the tool performs analysis and generates outputs but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention authentication requirements, or describe side effects. The description provides moderate transparency but could be clearer about what the tool does not do.

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 concise with two overview sentences followed by a parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the overview could be slightly more efficient.

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, no annotation support, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality, parameter details, and outputs (recap email draft, next-step proposals). It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's role among many CRM siblings.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage, so the description's 'Args' section provides essential meaning. Each parameter is briefly explained: message as 'free-text objective', call_id and transcript_url as alternatives, and framework with listed options. This adds significant value, though message could be more specific.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyse a sales call recording or transcript' with specific verb and resource. It lists identifiable elements (stakeholders, objections, commitments, MEDDPICC signals) and outputs (recap email draft, next-step proposals), effectively distinguishing it from sibling CRM tools.

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 when a call recording or transcript is available and analysis is needed, and notes that transcript_url is an alternative to call_id. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other CRM tools like crm_lead_qualification or crm_objection_handling, and does not specify when not to use it.

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