extract_crm_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds cost and service information, which is useful context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'CRM-ready structured data' entails (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that processes data.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. However, the cost and service details, while relevant, could be integrated more seamlessly or placed after the main action to improve flow.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error cases, and behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for a tool that extracts structured data from transcripts.

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 for the undocumented parameter 'transcript'. It implies the parameter is a call transcript but does not specify format, length limits, or language requirements. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'CRM-ready structured data from a call transcript', specifying the input source and output format. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_call' or 'verify_claim', which might also process transcripts, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_call' or 'verify_claim'. The description mentions cost and service details, but these do not help in selecting between tools for transcript processing tasks.

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