get-crm-v3-objects-quotes-var_var

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' at least implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not mention any behavioral aspects such as return format, filtering options, archived records, or associations. The schema hints at these but the description adds no value beyond the verb.

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?

One word 'Read' is extremely concise, but it is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It does not provide enough information to be useful and fails to 'earn its place'.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description 'Read' is completely inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool does, what it returns, or how to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the query capabilities, filtering, or response shape.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, but per rubric baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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?

Description is 'Read', which is a generic verb but does not specify the resource or action. It restates the 'get' operation from the tool name without naming quotes or object retrieval. This is vague and fails to distinguish from sibling read tools.

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. There are many sibling get/read tools (e.g., get-crm-v3-objects-quotes_quotes, get-crm-v3-objects-objtype-objid_objid) that could be confused. The description provides zero context for selection.

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