Get website chat button

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which covers the safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention what happens when the ID is not found, whether the response is a single object or array, or any error conditions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description provides no extra transparency, so it remains minimal.

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 a single sentence, directly states the action and target, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is quite minimal. It does not explain what a 'CRM plugin / website chat button' is within the Kommo context, nor does it describe the return value, which is necessary because no output schema exists. The presence of many sibling tools, including both kommo_plugins and kommo_crm_plugins, further demands contextual guidance that is absent. This is below the minimum viable for an agent to use confidently.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with no description (schema description coverage 0%), and the description merely says 'by ID', which only restates the parameter name. It does not clarify what the ID represents, how to obtain it, or its format beyond the integer type already in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the zero schema coverage.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('a CRM plugin / website chat button') with an ID parameter, which distinguishes it from the sibling list, create, update, and connect tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'by ID' phrasing implies a single-item retrieval. This is clear but not as fully differentiated as examples that explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kommo_crm_plugins_list or kommo_crm_plugins_update. The description only states the function without any context or exclusions, so an agent may not know when to choose this over other plugin-related tools.

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