Read a CRM field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the behavioral constraint that no search/fuzzy lookup exists, only exact identifier resolution. It says nothing about permissions, whether a missing field errors or returns empty, or rate limits, so it adds modest context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability first and the input constraint second; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

For a simple read-only single-field getter with full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does and the key limitation (no search). It leaves implicit what the return value looks like for a missing field, which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the warning that duplicate email/phone can match the wrong record and that record_id is preferred. The description restates the identifier choices and adds the nuance that phone/email apply to a customer specifically, but supplies no format or precedence detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource (read one field) plus the entities it applies to (customer, organization, potential record), which clearly separates it from the write-side sibling crm_set_field. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly rules out search ('There is no search') and states what inputs are required to proceed (record ID, phone, or email), which tells the agent when this tool is and isn't viable. It does not name a sibling to use instead when only a name/search term is available, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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