crm_verify_lead

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it runs an action through a dispatcher, omitting whether verification modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects.

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 short and includes a structured Args list. However, the brevity sacrifices informative content, making it merely efficient rather than comprehensive.

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 has an output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the tool's purpose and expected outcomes. It fails to clarify what verification entails, leaving the agent without adequate context to use it correctly.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description provides some value but lacks detail on expected input format or constraints.

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 tautologically states 'Run the crm domain agent action verify_lead' without explaining what 'verify_lead' actually does. It provides technical routing info but no semantic purpose, failing to distinguish 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope), which is infrastructure, not usage context.

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