b24_crm_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read ('Obtiene') and that it returns a 'complete' record across several entity types. However, it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or whether optional parameters alter behavior.

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?

A single, dense sentence that immediately leads with the verb and object. Every word adds value, and the supported entity list is compactly attached. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It leaves the meaning and necessity of 'entity', 'webhook_url', and 'entity_type_id' open, does not clarify how to choose between CRM entity types, and offers no guidance on expected response shape or failure modes.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful context by naming the entity types, which likely correspond to the 'entity' parameter, but it never explicitly maps them to parameters. 'webhook_url' and 'entity_type_id' remain entirely unexplained, leaving most parameters semantically empty.

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 a specific action ('Obtiene un registro CRM completo por ID') and explicitly names the supported record types (deal, contact, company, lead, SPA item), which distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete siblings. An agent can tell this is the single-record-by-ID retriever without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'por ID' implies this is the tool for fetching one specific record rather than listing or creating, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like b24_crm_list and b24_tasks_get nearby, the agent must infer the separation rather than being told.

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