list_crm_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: filtering by owner, contact/account internal IDs (with a warning that they are NOT names), stage values, date range constraints, sort/pagination defaults, and the max limit of 200. This is substantial context beyond a simple 'list' operation. It does not mention rate limits or permission requirements, but for a read-only list operation, the disclosed behavior is fairly complete.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, then a clean Args list. Each parameter explanation is concise yet informative, with examples and defaults. While it is somewhat long due to 10 parameters, no sentence is wasted, and the formatting improves scannability.

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 10 parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema. The description covers all parameters, provides cross-references to related tools (list_users, list_contacts, list_accounts), and explains pagination and sorting. Since an output schema exists, the description need not elaborate on return structure. This is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with concrete examples ('john.doe', 'contact_674eda46162a8403430453'), constraints (date format YYYY-MM-DD, stage OPEN/CLOSE), defaults (sort: edited, sort_dir: desc, take: 50), and warnings (contact is not a person's name). This goes far beyond what the schema's types and defaults provide, adding crucial semantic meaning for the agent.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List CRM records (deals, opportunities, or other CRM entities).' This clearly states the tool's action and object, and the inclusion of examples ('deals, opportunities') helps distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_tickets or list_emails. Though 'other CRM entities' is vague, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it provides clear operational guidance for parameters, such as 'Use list_users to find login names' and 'call list_contacts(search=...) first to find the ID.' This tells the agent how to prepare inputs and indirectly implies the tool's role in a workflow. However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct sibling comparison.

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