list_conversion_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Return') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. The mention of 'canonical' hints at standardized data, but behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, side effects, or error handling are not disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It efficiently conveys key information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse 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, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 1 parameter (0% schema coverage), and no usage guidelines, the description is incomplete for a tool that might involve client-specific data. It covers purpose but lacks context on behavior and parameters, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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%, and there is 1 parameter ('client_id') with no description in the schema. The tool description does not mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage. However, with 0 required parameters, the baseline is 4, but since the description adds no parameter semantics, it's scored lower at 3 for minimal adequacy.

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 ('Return') and resource ('canonical CRM conversion states'), specifying they are for 'recategorization'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'crm_customers_by_state' or 'crm_state_stats' by focusing on available states rather than customer data or statistics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'change_crm_state', which might involve similar states.

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 mentions 'for recategorization', which implies usage context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'change_crm_state' or 'crm_customers_by_state'. No explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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