crm_get_company_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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it returns all properties by default. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, given the complexity of the tool (2 undocumented parameters, no annotations), this brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'properties' are, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without guessing about parameters and output format.

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% description coverage, meaning neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what 'archived' filters or what the 'properties' array should contain, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'crm_get_contact_properties' or 'crm_get_lead_properties', nor does it clarify what 'properties' means in this context (custom fields, metadata, etc.).

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 retrieving company-related data (e.g., 'crm_get_company', 'crm_search_companies'), but the description doesn't indicate whether this tool is for metadata/properties only versus full company records, or when filtering via parameters might be appropriate.

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