get-crm-v3-associations-var-var-types_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only says 'List association types', which essentially mirrors the tool name and adds no detail about read-only guarantees, auth requirements, pagination, or error handling. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits.

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 one short sentence and front-loaded, but it is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness; it lacks necessary detail to be useful beyond the name.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent; it doesn't specify what 'association types' means, how the object type parameters are used, or what the response contains. Sibling tools create ambiguity.

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 describes both parameters as 'Path parameter fromObjectType' and 'Path parameter toObjectType', providing minimal semantic meaning. The description adds no extra parameter context, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3.

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 uses a clear verb 'List' and resource 'association types', indicating the tool lists association types between two object types. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get-crm-v4-associations-definitions-configurations-all_all, so it's clear but lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description is a single phrase with no context about prerequisites, object types, or differences from other association-listing tools.

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