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. 'Get all properties' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the properties come in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return format, or how this differs from other lead/property tools. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'all properties' but doesn't explain the 'archived' boolean parameter or the 'properties' array parameter (which appears to allow filtering specific properties despite the 'all' claim). This creates confusion rather than adding clarity.

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' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('properties for leads'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_get_lead' or 'crm_get_company_properties', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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_lead' (which presumably gets lead data) and 'crm_get_contact_properties', there's no indication of when this specific properties-focused tool is appropriate versus other lead-related tools.

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