b24_crm_status_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return structure (pagination envelope with STATUS_ID, NAME, ENTITY_ID, SORT). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence adds value with no filler. The description is efficient and easy to parse.

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's simplicity, the description covers its purpose, return format, and use case. The output schema exists, so the mention of returned fields is sufficient. No obvious gaps.

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% description coverage for all three parameters (entity_id, webhook_url, personal_webhook). The tool description does not add extra parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema itself is detailed. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists CRM status dictionary entries (stages, sources, types) and specifies the API method crm.status.list. It also explains the purpose with a concrete example: resolving a stage code like 'C7:NEW' to a human name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like b24_crm_fields or b24_crm_list.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to resolve stage codes to human names. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the example gives a strong usage hint. Missing explicit exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

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