crm_get_lead_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. 'Get all properties for leads' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it's arguably too concise given the lack of parameter and usage details, which impacts completeness.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, return values, or behavioral traits. For a read operation in a CRM context with sibling tools, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 and properties) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description 'Get all properties for leads' doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema 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 leads' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('properties for leads'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about scope ('all' could mean all properties in the system or all properties for specific leads), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_lead or crm_get_company_properties. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for CRM operations (e.g., crm_get_lead, crm_get_company_properties, crm_batch_read_objects), but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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