get-crm-object-schemas-v3-schemas-objtype_objtype

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description simply says 'Get an existing schema' without describing any side effects, permissions, or response characteristics. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, which would be useful given the absence of annotations.

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, consisting of a single short sentence that conveys the core action. There is no unnecessary text or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still too minimal. It does not mention what the schema represents, how the objectType parameter affects the result, or what the response might look like. This leaves important context missing for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter 'objectType', but the description of the parameter is minimal ('Path parameter objectType'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('an existing schema'). The tool name includes 'v3-schemas-objtype_objtype', which indicates it retrieves a schema by object type, providing additional context. However, the description itself does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool that lists all schemas, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools. This leaves the agent without explicit direction for tool selection.

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