get-crm-v3-properties-objtype-groups-var_var

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. 'Read a property group' implies a non-destructive operation, but it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, response format, error behavior (e.g., if the group does not exist), or any other behavioral traits.

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 four-word sentence, 'Read a property group', which is extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema and the description is minimal. It lacks contextual details such as the meaning of a property group, examples of valid objectType values, what the response contains, or any pointers to related operations. For a simple read this is borderline, but given the large sibling set, the description does not provide enough context for confident selection.

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 100% coverage of the two parameters, but the descriptions 'Path parameter groupName' and 'Path parameter objectType' are tautological and uninformative. The tool description adds no semantic meaning about what objectType or groupName represent, so it does not enhance the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 'Read a property group' provides a specific verb (read) and resource (property group), clearly indicating a single read operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling list operation 'get-crm-v3-properties-objtype-groups_groups' or mention that it retrieves a group by objectType and groupName, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 such as listing all property groups, deleting a group, or patching a group. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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