crm_customers_by_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'explicit dedupe diagnostics,' which hints at output behavior, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'dedupe diagnostics' entail. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying listing, filtering, and diagnostics without redundancy. It avoids unnecessary elaboration while clearly stating the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for output explanation in the description. However, the description lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, meaning parameter titles provide minimal semantic context. The description adds no information about parameters beyond implying filtering by 'conversion states.' It doesn't explain what 'product_slug' refers to, the format of 'states', the purpose of 'client_id', or the meaning of 'include_conversations'. This fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 tool's purpose: 'List CRM customer data filtered by conversion states with explicit dedupe diagnostics.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('CRM customer data'), and key filtering criteria ('by conversion states'), distinguishing it from general listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_deduped_crm_by_category' or 'crm_state_stats', which prevents a perfect score.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring 'product_slug' as the only mandatory parameter, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_deduped_crm_by_category' for deduplication or 'crm_state_stats' for state-related analytics. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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