crm_get_company_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all properties' suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, or what format the results come in. For a CRM tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, which is efficient for a simple tool. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise. The single sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks necessary details.

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 complexity of a CRM system, 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'properties' means in this context, doesn't describe the return format, and doesn't provide context about the CRM system it interacts with. For a tool that likely returns structured data about company properties, this 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (archived, properties) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description provides no information about these parameters - it doesn't mention that you can filter by archived status or specify which properties to retrieve. With low schema coverage and no parameter information in the description, the agent has insufficient guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.

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 companies' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('properties for companies'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_get_company' or 'crm_get_contact_properties' - it's unclear if this returns property definitions or actual property values on companies. The description is somewhat vague about what 'properties' means in this context.

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. There are multiple CRM-related tools in the sibling list (like crm_get_company, crm_get_contact_properties, crm_search_companies) but no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those others. The agent receives no usage context or prerequisites.

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