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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't address whether this requires authentication, what format the properties are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if this retrieves property definitions versus property values. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 maximally concise - a single 5-word sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the essential information, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic operation.

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's complexity (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'properties' means in this context (definitions vs values), doesn't address the parameters, doesn't describe the return format, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured metadata, this leaves too many open questions for effective agent use.

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, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'all properties' but doesn't explain the 'archived' boolean parameter or the 'properties' array parameter. The agent cannot understand what these parameters control - whether 'archived' filters companies or properties, or what strings go in the 'properties' array. This leaves both parameters semantically ambiguous.

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. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'crm_get_company' or 'crm_get_contact_properties' - it's clear what it does but not how it differs from related read operations.

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. With multiple CRM read operations available (crm_get_company, crm_get_contact_properties, crm_get_lead_properties, crm_list_objects, etc.), there's no indication whether this retrieves metadata about company property definitions versus actual company property values, or when filtering via the 'archived' or 'properties' parameters is appropriate.

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