crm_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is already known. The description adds the 'timeline' source context is useful but minimal, and no behavioral details such as pagination behavior, ordering, or handling of missing objects are disclosed.

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 a single concise phrase with no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded. It is not maximally effective because it is a noun phrase without a verb, but it is still lean and easy to parse.

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 output schema and annotations carry significant context, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, the description itself is thin: it lacks an explicit operation verb, pagination semantics, and any indication of when to choose this tool over crm_add_comment. It is minimally viable but has clear 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 100% and completely documents id, start, and entity with types, enums, and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('comments') and source ('timeline of a CRM object'), so an agent can tell it returns comments rather than creating or updating them. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list' and does not name or differentiate against the sibling crm_add_comment.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crm_add_comment or task_add_comment. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are provided; the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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