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 it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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. 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?

For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, output format, error conditions, or differentiation from related tools. The brevity comes at the cost of necessary context for effective tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'all properties' but doesn't explain the 'archived' boolean parameter or the 'properties' array parameter (which appears to allow filtering specific properties rather than getting 'all'). This creates confusion about whether the tool actually returns all properties or can be filtered.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all properties for leads'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like crm_get_lead (which gets lead details) and crm_get_lead_property (singular). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_get_company_properties or crm_get_contact_properties, which have similar patterns for different entities.

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 crm_get_lead_properties versus crm_get_lead (which might include properties), crm_search_leads (which might filter by properties), or the batch read tools. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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