get-crm-v3-objects-objtype-objid-associations-var_var

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'List associations'. It does not mention response format, pagination, error cases, authentication requirements, or whether both directions of associations are returned. The minimal phrase leaves significant gaps for a GET operation.

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 communicates the core action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, achieving high efficiency.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the list of associations looks like, whether it returns association IDs, labels, or other metadata. There is no mention of pagination or limits. With numerous sibling association tools, this description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and expected output.

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% (each parameter has a 'Path parameter' description), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond schema: 'by type' loosely maps to toObjectType, but it does not clarify the meaning of objectType vs objectId vs toObjectType. The schema names themselves are mostly self-explanatory, so no additional compensation is needed.

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 'List associations of an object by type' clearly specifies the action (list) and resource (associations of an object), with 'by type' hinting at the toObjectType parameter. It distinguishes from sibling association tools by being the GET/list operation, but could be more explicit about the object and target type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read operation for associations, nor does it contrast with create/delete/put association tools among the siblings. The need to use it is implied by the verb 'List' but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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