crm_search_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't confirm this or mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. It doesn't describe what happens when no results are found or how results are structured. For a complex search tool with 6 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, which is efficient. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise. The single sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks necessary details.

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?

For a complex search tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, error conditions, or how this differs from sibling search tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'using filters' which only hints at one parameter (filterGroups) out of six. It doesn't explain objectType choices, properties selection, limit constraints, pagination via 'after', or sorting options. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already evident from parameter names in the schema.

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 states the tool searches CRM objects using filters, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, and crm_search_leads, which appear to be more specific versions of the same functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific search tools (crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, crm_search_leads) or the broader crm_list_objects. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when-not-to-use scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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