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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what happens if no contacts exist. 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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple-sounding tool and front-loads the core action ('Get all properties for contacts'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'properties' are in this CRM context, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'archived' filters, what 'properties' array should contain, or if both are optional. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 contacts', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'crm_get_contact' or 'crm_get_company_properties', which would require more specificity 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'crm_get_contact' for individual contact data, 'crm_get_company_properties' for company properties), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons.

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