crm_get_contact_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all properties for contacts' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns archived contacts, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get all properties for contacts'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or return format. For a tool that likely returns structured data about contact properties, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially with no output schema to clarify results.

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, properties) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation. The description 'Get all properties for contacts' doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'archived' filters or what 'properties' array contains, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crm_get_contact (which retrieves contact data) and crm_get_company_properties (which targets companies). However, it doesn't specify whether 'all' means all properties across all contacts or for specific contacts, which prevents a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like crm_get_contact (for contact details) or crm_get_company_properties (for company properties), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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