crm_get_contact_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' implies a read operation, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It doesn't specify if it returns archived contacts by default or how the 'archived' parameter affects results, leaving behavioral aspects unclear.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, parameter usage, or behavioral constraints. For a read operation with undocumented inputs, more context is needed to guide effective tool invocation.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters ('archived' and 'properties'). However, it adds no parameter semantics beyond implying 'properties' might be fetched. It doesn't explain what 'archived' does or how 'properties' array filters results, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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 contacts' clearly states the action (get) and resource (contact properties), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_get_contact' or 'crm_get_company_properties' beyond the obvious contact focus, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 many sibling CRM tools (e.g., crm_get_contact, crm_get_company_properties, crm_search_contacts), but the description offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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