detect_crm_null_fields

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it reads recent CRM leads, returns statistics, and explains the implication of results. No side effects or destructive behavior are mentioned, which is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured. Each sentence adds value: action, output details, implication, and cross-reference. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and only one parameter with no schema description, the description provides sufficient detail: fields checked, return metrics, time window, and downstream usage. It is contextually complete for this simple scan tool.

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?

The only parameter 'since_hours' has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'leads created in the past N hours', implying the parameter controls the time window. This adds meaning but could be more explicit about the parameter name.

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 it scans CRM leads for missing media identifier fields, returning count and percentage. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning cross-reference with check_signal_capture_health.

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 explains the tool is used to detect a broken tracking pipeline and suggests cross-referencing with check_signal_capture_health. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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