crm_cleanse_v1_pipelines_crm_cleanse_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuinely useful disclosures — 'Deterministic logic ensures data consistency' and 'Cost: 3 credits per request' — beyond an empty annotation block. However, it omits the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for a multi-entity pipeline: expected return format, error/edge-case handling, and what happens to unmatched fields. Partial disclosure, no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the ideal-use case, then behavior/cost notes. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the input side is complete. But no output schema exists and the description never hints at the response shape for a three-entity orchestrator, leaving the agent without expectations about what is returned. Adequate for tool selection, incomplete for the return contract.

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 baseline is 3. The schema fully documents raw_data (with examples and even embedded usage guidance) and context (locale, timezone, transliterate, target_currency). The description adds nothing on parameters, which is fine because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Orchestrates') with a precise resource ('Name, Contact, and Address enrichment in a single call'), making it immediately distinguishable from the sibling enrichment tools (enrich_name, enrich_contact, enrich_address) that handle each entity individually. The aggregate scope is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context with 'Ideal for processing raw lead data or unstructured contact strings,' signaling the messy-input scenario. It stops short of naming the alternatives or explicit exclusions in the description itself — though the raw_data schema description does provide the when-not/alternative routing ('USE THIS PIPELINE instead of individual tools... saves tokens and reduces latency'). Since the exclusion logic lives in the schema rather than the description, a 4 is appropriate.

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