crm_get_lead_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' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the properties come in. It mentions 'all properties' but doesn't clarify if this includes archived properties (though there's an 'archived' parameter in the schema). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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 explain what the parameters do, what authentication is needed, what format the properties are returned in, or how this differs from related lead tools. For a tool with this level of complexity and minimal structured documentation, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. The tool has 2 parameters ('archived' and 'properties'), but the description mentions neither. 'Get all properties for leads' doesn't explain what the 'archived' boolean controls or what the 'properties' array parameter does (likely to filter properties). With low schema coverage and no parameter explanation in the description, this creates significant gaps.

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 understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about scope - 'all properties' could mean all property definitions or all property values for specific leads. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_lead (which gets lead data) or crm_create_lead_property (which creates properties).

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 for leads (crm_get_lead, crm_search_leads, crm_batch_read_objects, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific property-fetching tool is appropriate versus retrieving lead data directly. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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