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' suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the properties come in (e.g., key-value pairs, metadata objects). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, straightforward sentence that gets directly to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple-sounding tool, though it could be more informative. There's no structural issue like being front-loaded with irrelevant information.

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 the tool returns (e.g., a list of property objects, a dictionary), or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely interacts with a CRM system, more context is needed 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 and properties) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning neither parameter has documentation in the schema. The description 'Get all properties for contacts' doesn't mention either parameter, failing to explain what 'archived' does (filter archived contacts?) or what 'properties' expects (specific property names to retrieve?). With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate at all for the undocumented parameters.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('properties for contacts'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about scope ('all properties' could mean metadata or field values) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_contact (which gets contact details) or crm_get_company_properties (which gets company 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. It doesn't mention when to use it instead of crm_get_contact (which might return basic contact info), crm_search_contacts (which might return filtered contacts), or other property-related tools like crm_get_company_properties. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases.

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