get_deduped_crm_by_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'deduped' records, implying duplicate removal, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'deduped' entails (e.g., criteria, impact on data). For a retrieval tool with 5 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 has an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns) but no annotations and 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'state or lead-category bucket' which loosely relates to the 'category' parameter, but doesn't explain any parameters (e.g., what 'product_slug' is, how 'include_conversations' affects output). With 5 undocumented parameters, this adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve deduped CRM records') and specifies the scope ('by single state or lead-category bucket'), which distinguishes it from general CRM retrieval tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_customers_by_state' or 'crm_state_stats', which appear related.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'single state or lead-category bucket' but doesn't explain when to choose this over other CRM tools like 'crm_customers_by_state' or 'crm_state_stats', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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