get-crm-v4-objects-objtype-objid_objid

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

With no annotations and a one-word description, there is zero disclosure of behavioral traits. The tool is a read operation, but the description does not mention side effects, return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral context.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not front-load necessary information; it merely states the generic action. A useful description would be at least a full sentence.

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?

This is a simple GET-by-ID operation, but the description fails to communicate what the response contains, whether it returns a full object, or any invocation context. With no output schema or annotations, the description carries the full burden and is clearly inadequate for an agent to understand expected behavior.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the two parameters, but those descriptions ('Path parameter objectId' and 'Path parameter objectType') are minimal and merely indicate location. The tool description adds no further meaning. Per the rubric, high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3, but the schema descriptions are not substantive; still, the parameter names themselves are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 'Read' is a synonym for 'get' and restates the operation implied by the tool name. It fails to specify the resource (CRM object) or the parameters involved, making it essentially a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., delete, patch, batch-create). The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without 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.