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 full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens if parameters are omitted. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it conveys, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool in a CRM context, this leaves too many unknowns 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'all properties' but doesn't explain the two parameters ('archived' and 'properties') at all. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameters completely undocumented.

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 understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about scope ('all' could mean all properties in the system vs. all for specific contacts) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_get_contact' or 'crm_get_company_properties' beyond the contact focus.

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. With sibling tools like 'crm_get_contact' (gets contact data) and 'crm_get_company_properties' (gets company properties), there's no indication of when retrieving contact properties specifically is appropriate versus other data retrieval methods.

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