test_crm_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions testing connectivity and response but does not detail what the test entails (e.g., HTTP request specifics, expected outcomes, side effects). This is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence with a subtitle, achieving high conciseness. It front-loads the action and purpose, with every word earning its place.

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 5 parameters (including nested auth object) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks explanation of how the test works, what response is returned, or any failure handling. Essential context is missing.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tests CRM endpoint connectivity and response ('Probar endpoint CRM — Prueba la conectividad y respuesta de un endpoint CRM'). The verb 'test' and specific resource 'CRM endpoint' make it unambiguous, and no sibling tool shares this exact purpose.

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 implies usage for testing custom CRM endpoints configured in the store. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives, the context of sibling tools (e.g., test_ecommerce_connection, test_email_connection) makes it clear this is for CRM-specific testing.

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