post-crm-v4-associations-usage-high-usage-report-var_var

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but it reveals virtually nothing about behavior. It doesn't say whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or any side effects. The only hint is that a body is required, but even its structure is undefined.

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 only two sentences, but it's under-specified rather than concise. 'Report.' is a fragment that conveys no actionable information. The second sentence is a directive to check the schema, which is not a substitute for explaining what the tool does.

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 report tool with no output schema, no behavioral details, and an opaque body parameter. The description fails to describe what data is returned, how to construct the request body, or why this report differs from other association APIs. It is almost entirely inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions), the body description 'Request body data (schema not specified in OpenAPI)' is vacuous. The tool description merely tells the user to check the inputSchema, adding no additional meaning. The body parameter's structure and purpose remain completely unexplained.

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 'Report' is extremely vague and mostly restates the tool name's 'report' concept. It doesn't specify what the report does, what resource it acts on, or how it relates to the sibling association tools. The name suggests a usage high-usage report, but the description fails to elaborate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other association report or CRM tools. It only mentions that a body parameter is required, but gives no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or why this tool should be selected over siblings like post-crm-v4-associations-var-var-batch-read.

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