Get All Properties

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it states explicitly that it's read-only, describes defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id, and lists common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404) and their meanings. This gives the agent practical expectations for failures.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, defaults, errors, and API context. While it is longer than the minimal example, each sentence conveys useful information without excessive redundancy. The logical flow aids comprehension.

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 simple read-only GET with no output schema, the description covers the return shape ('a single JSON object'), the view behavior, default parameter values, and error modes. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it doesn't describe the actual fields inside the property metadata—acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, but the schema description for 'view' is inconsistent with its enum values (mentions 'normal'/'extended' vs. 'Normal'/'Keys'). The tool description resolves this by correctly explaining 'view=Keys' gets only keys and the default view returns full metadata. It also clarifies the defaulting behavior of company_id and project_id, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Returns custom/dynamic properties defined for shipment documents.' It names the specific resource (shipment documents) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other resources or project scopes. The phrase 'Use this when you already know which property you want and need its full field set' reinforces the specific use case.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool ('when you already know which property you want and need its full field set') and explains the view parameter options. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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