crm_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that this is a lightweight, user-scoped summary and avoids loading full lists, but it does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, auth expectations, or return format. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the primary output and scope; the second adds actionable guidance without any wasted words.

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?

For a no-parameter summary tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies the resource (CRM counts), the scope (this user), the entities included (groups, leads, tasks), and the intended usage position ('start here'). It could clarify output shape or freshness, but the lack of an output schema makes the current level reasonably adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain input semantics. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no conflict with the empty schema.

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 identifies the tool as providing compact CRM counts for the current user, covering groups, leads, and tasks. It distinguishes itself from full list-loading sibling tools by presenting a summary/overview rather than detailed records.

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 phrase 'Start here to see state without loading full lists' explicitly tells users when to use this tool: as an initial overview before diving into list tools. It implies the alternative is to load full lists and frames this as the lighter-weight entry point.

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