verify_crm_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose without disclosing whether this is read-only, what side effects exist, authentication needs, or what happens if verification fails. 'Verify' hints at a non-destructive check, but the agent is left to assume.

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?

A single sentence with zero fluff or redundancy. The core action is front-loaded. However, it is too terse to be fully useful, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness failure.

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?

The tool has nested object parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description provides only a one-line purpose with no information on required input structure, behavior, or return values. It is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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. It does not explain the meaning or structure of the two required parameters ('expected' and 'record') at all. An agent cannot infer what values to provide or how they relate to the verification process.

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?

States a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('attribution reached a CRM/account record'). Distinguishes from similar siblings like verify_form_attachment, verify_capture, and verify_conversion_delivery by targeting CRM records. Not a tautology, though 'attribution' is somewhat vague.

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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as verify_conversion_delivery or reconcile_conversions. The name implies a verification use case, but no context or exclusions are provided.

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