get-crm-v3-properties-objtype-var_var

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the operation is a read, but says nothing about what data is returned, the meaning of the 'archived' or 'properties' parameters, error conditions, or any side effects. This is minimal.

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 concise ('Read a property') but overly terse. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, yet it lacks enough substance to be considered well-structured. A brief but useful description would include what kind of property and key context.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and a very sparse description. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters like 'archived' and 'properties' affect the result, or the role of objectType and propertyName beyond being path parameters. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics; it simply restates the action. The schema provides generic parameter descriptions like 'Path parameter objectType' which are not very helpful, but the description does not compensate.

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' clearly states a specific verb (read) and resource (property), making it evident that this tool retrieves a single property. However, it does not differentiate among sibling tools like listing all properties or getting property groups, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or relationships to other property-related tools, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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