crm_get_company_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or has any side effects. It doesn't describe what format the properties are returned in or whether archived companies are included by default. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for complete understanding, it achieves perfect conciseness within its limited scope.

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 a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'properties' means in this context (metadata definitions vs. values), doesn't address the two parameters, and provides no behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns structured data about company properties, this leaves too many unanswered questions for effective agent use.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description mentions neither parameter - it doesn't explain what 'archived' does (filter by archived status?) or what 'properties' array contains (specific property names to retrieve?). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's inferable from the parameter names themselves, failing to address the schema coverage gap.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all properties for companies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from other company-related tools like crm_get_company (which gets company details) and crm_get_contact_properties (which gets contact properties). However, it doesn't specify whether this retrieves metadata about properties or actual property values, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use crm_get_company_properties versus crm_get_company (which might include properties) or crm_search_companies (which might filter by properties). There's no discussion of prerequisites, context, or typical use cases for retrieving company properties.

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