list_associations

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 includes the endpoint mapping and a tier hint ('readonly-owner'), indicating a read operation with owner-based access. However, it does not disclose pagination, result format, or other behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence plus endpoint and tier annotation—concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, and a basic access constraint. It lacks return format details, but for a standard CRM association list, it is fairly complete.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions with examples). The description does not add further meaning beyond what is in the schema. The parameter names are self-explanatory, so minimal extra value is provided.

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 the tool lists records of one object type associated with a specific record, using a specific verb-resource combination. It maps to a clear API endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools that get or list single 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 for retrieving associations between object types, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_contact or list_deals. The tier annotation provides some context but lacks when-to-use guidance.

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