post-crm-v3-objects-line_items-batch-read_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for a body parameter and provides an example, but does not explain behavior for invalid IDs, archived items, or authentication. The word 'Read' signals non-destructive intent, but additional context would be beneficial.

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 two concise sentences plus a helpful example, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then specifies the required body format, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a batch-read tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, required body, and an example. Optional parameters (archived, idProperty) are not mentioned, but the schema covers them. The tool is clearly distinguished from siblings, though it lacks detail on response format or error handling, resulting in a 4.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies that inputs are object IDs and properties are the fields to retrieve, and provides an example showing propertiesWithHistory as an empty array. This adds value beyond the schema's generic descriptions (e.g., 'Array of items') and earns a 4.

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 'Read a batch of line items by internal ID, or unique property values', specifying the verb, resource, and two retrieval modes. This distinguishes it from sibling read/search tools for other object types.

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 implies usage when you have known internal IDs or unique property values to retrieve in bulk. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like search or single-read endpoints, but the context is clear and gives a strong signal for when to use this tool.

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