Read a CRM's field schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations don't carry: required scopes (integrations:read, luca:read) and data sensitivity (full_content). The 'Does not require idempotency' line is largely redundant with the idempotentHint annotation but not contradictory.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by operation, scopes, and the workspace note; each line is short and scannable. Some lines (the raw endpoint and 'Does not require idempotency') lean toward boilerplate but carry operational value.

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 an output schema present, return contents needn't be described, and the description covers auth scope, data sensitivity, the underlying operation, and workspace overrides. It is nearly complete, missing only a note on what the required connection id refers to.

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 67%: workspaceId and workspaceSlug are documented in the schema, while the required id has no description. The description adds the meaningful detail that the workspace params override the environment-configured default, but it never explains the required connection id, leaving a gap in both places.

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 names a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('CRM provider schema'), reinforced by the title 'Read a CRM's field schema' and the explicit endpoint GET /api/integrations/crm/connections/{id}/schema. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like connections_health or mappings_suggest, though it doesn't spell out that it targets a single connection's fields.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The only directive ('Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace') is parameter mechanics rather than task routing, so usage must be inferred from the endpoint path.

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