crm_search_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search CRM objects using filters' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this is paginated, what authentication is required, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. It mentions 'filters' but doesn't explain the complex filter structure shown in the schema.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't waste words. For such a brief statement, every word earns its place by conveying the essential function.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what CRM objects are, how filtering works, what the response contains, or any behavioral aspects. The description fails to provide the necessary context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description 'Search CRM objects using filters' only hints at the 'filterGroups' parameter. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'objectType', 'properties', 'limit', 'after', or 'sorts', nor does it clarify the complex nested structure of filters. The description fails to compensate for the poor schema documentation.

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 'Search CRM objects using filters' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (CRM objects), but it's vague about what 'CRM objects' specifically are. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, or crm_search_leads, which appear to be more specific versions of similar functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling search tools (crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, crm_search_leads, crm_list_objects, crm_batch_read_objects), there's no indication of when this general search tool is preferred over the more specific ones or what differentiates them.

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