Get Service Status by Funnel and CPF

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when no record matches the CPF/funnel pair, nor whether the funnel must exist beforehand.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the two lookup keys last; zero filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all four parameters are fully described in the schema. The only shortfall is the absence of sibling routing guidance, which is minor given the low complexity of a read-only two-key lookup.

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 100%, so the schema already documents CPF formatting flexibility, the funnel slug semantics, response_format and include_customer_data. The description merely restates the two required lookup keys without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource ("customer service record status") and names both lookup keys, funnel slug and CPF. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling heymax_crm_get_service_status_by_id, leaving the agent to guess which lookup path applies.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus heymax_crm_get_service_status_by_id, nor any precondition such as needing a funnel slug already resolved via the list_pipelines sibling. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and required parameters.

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