crm_get_company_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Get all properties' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this returns metadata about properties versus actual property values, whether it's paginated, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for completeness, it achieves perfect conciseness within its limited scope.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for its 2 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'properties' means in this context (property definitions? property values?), doesn't clarify the relationship between archived filtering and properties array, and provides no behavioral context. For a tool with this level of structured data gaps, the description should do much more heavy lifting.

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 for both parameters (archived and properties), and the tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever. The description doesn't explain what 'archived' filters, what 'properties' array should contain, or whether parameters are optional. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this creates significant ambiguity for parameter usage.

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 other CRM tools that focus on specific companies or other entity types, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_contact_properties or crm_get_lead_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's no mention of whether this retrieves all company properties globally versus for specific companies, or how it differs from other property-related tools like crm_get_company (which might include properties) or crm_create_company_property. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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