crm_get_contact_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all properties for contacts', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, handles errors, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get all properties for contacts'), making it easy to parse. Every word serves a purpose, adhering to the principle of conciseness without being overly sparse.

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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, return format, or behavioral traits like error handling. For a read operation in a CRM context, more details are needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly without guesswork.

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 input schema has 2 parameters ('archived' and 'properties') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The description 'Get all properties for contacts' doesn't explain what these parameters do—for example, whether 'archived' filters results or 'properties' specifies which properties to retrieve. It adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the 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 'Get all properties for contacts' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('properties for contacts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'crm_get_contact' (which likely gets contact details) and 'crm_get_company_properties' (for companies). However, it doesn't specify whether this retrieves all properties globally or for specific contacts, 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing contact IDs), exclusions (e.g., not for archived contacts unless specified), or related tools like 'crm_get_contact' or 'crm_get_company_properties'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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