crm_get_lead_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or what 'all properties' entails (e.g., default vs. custom). The description is too minimal to guide safe or effective use.

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, straightforward sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its limited content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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, 2 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (CRM tool), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavior, output format, and usage context. For a tool that likely interacts with lead data, this minimal description is inadequate.

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. It doesn't explain the two parameters ('archived' and 'properties') at all—no mention of what 'archived' filters, what 'properties' array should contain, or if they're optional. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters 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 leads' states the basic action (get) and resource (lead properties), but lacks specificity about scope or format. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'crm_get_lead' (which presumably gets lead data) or 'crm_get_contact_properties' (same action for different resource). The purpose is clear but generic.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a lead ID, though none appears in parameters), nor comparison to similar tools like 'crm_get_lead' or 'crm_search_leads'. The description implies it retrieves properties, but doesn't clarify context or constraints.

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