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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds context about what attributes are returned and that it's a lean variant of crm_describe. This adds some value but no deeper behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering, errors). With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and avoids all redundancy. Every word is informative, making it highly concise.

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 is simple (lists objects) and has good annotation coverage, but the unexplained 'account' parameter is a critical gap. There's no output schema to clarify return values, so the description should at least clarify the parameter scope. The lack of any parameter guidance brings completeness down, despite the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has one parameter (account) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent has no clue what 'account' refers to (e.g., account name, ID, optional/required). The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, rendering the parameter ambiguous.

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 it lists CRM objects with specific attributes (key, label, module, kanban) and explicitly distinguishes itself from crm_describe by noting it's a lean version without fields. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 when to use it: when you need a simple list of objects without field details, as it positions itself as an alternative to crm_describe. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions, so it's clear but not with explicit when-not guidance.

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