Search CRM

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses nothing about matching behavior ('full-text-ish' is vague and hedged), case sensitivity, result limits, ranking, pagination, or which fields per entity are actually matched.

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?

One efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. The hedge 'full-text-ish' is slightly wasteful and imprecise but the definition remains tight.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should disclose matching behavior and return shape but doesn't. It is under-specified for how an agent must actually invoke and interpret the call.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no schema description. The description partially compensates by implying the searchable fields (name/email/title), but leaves query syntax, matching rules, and formatting entirely undefined.

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?

States a clear verb (search) and resource scope (companies, contacts, deals) with the searchable fields (name/email/title). Distinguishes itself from sibling list_*/get_* tools, which are entity-specific rather than cross-entity search, though it doesn't name a specific alternative.

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 cross-entity nature implies usage (find something when you don't know which entity type it is), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and siblings are not referenced.

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