crm_get_company_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 all properties' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'all' entails (e.g., all properties globally or per company). The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe and effective use, especially for a tool that might return large datasets.

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 action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral traits like data scope or limitations, or return format. For a tool that could involve complex data retrieval, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how 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, properties) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what 'archived' filters or what 'properties' array contains, leaving parameters undocumented and ambiguous.

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 purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_get_company (which gets company details) and crm_get_contact_properties (which focuses on contacts). However, it doesn't specify what 'properties' means (e.g., custom fields, attributes), which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention when to use crm_get_company_properties versus crm_get_company (which might include properties) or crm_get_contact_properties (for contact properties). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about filtering options like archived status, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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