crm_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns 'all filled fields', which conveys the output scope (i.e., it does not return empty fields). This goes beyond the annotation and provides useful context, though it doesn't cover other behaviors like error handling or pagination (not applicable here).

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it adds the 'all filled fields' qualifier without any fluff. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 simplicity (two parameters, both documented), the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It specifies the input (ID and entity) and the output scope (all filled fields), so nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both 'entity' and 'id' having clear descriptions. The description adds no new parameter semantics; it only mentions 'by ID' and the entity types, which are already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('get') and the specific resource types (lead, deal, contact, company) and the key qualifier 'by ID' with 'all filled fields'. This distinguishes it from siblings like crm_list (which lists) and crm_find_by_contact_info (which searches by contact info), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied: use when you have an ID and need a single entity. However, without explicit guidance, an agent might not fully appreciate that this is the canonical ID-based fetch, distinct from list or search operations.

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