handle_objection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'the best Merlin response,' but doesn't explain what 'best' means (e.g., based on criteria like effectiveness or data), whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to understand its behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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: 'Get the best Merlin response to a common sales objection.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 (simple with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like how responses are generated, potential limitations, or what the output contains. For a tool that likely involves AI or data processing, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively without structured output information.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'objection' described as 'The objection raised by the prospect.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of common objections or formatting tips. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without extra help from the description.

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: 'Get the best Merlin response to a common sales objection.' It specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('Merlin response'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_competitor' or 'qualify_lead', which might also handle sales-related queries. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 scenarios where it's appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if it's for common objections only or all objections, or how it differs from other sales tools in the sibling list. This leaves usage ambiguous.

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