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

The description adds that this is an LLM-based generation call and is synchronous, which is useful beyond the schema. Annotations already flag non-destructive and closed-world behavior, and there is no contradiction, but the description does not disclose whether suggestions are persisted or how existingOptions affect the output.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in a concise first sentence. The second sentence, 'Synchronous unary call,' adds marginal protocol detail but is not clearly necessary for an agent selecting the tool.

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 small 3-parameter tool, the core purpose is understandable, but the description lacks usage context about when to suggest versus retrieve options, and gives no guidance on how fieldName and existingOptions relate. The output schema may cover return shape, but input semantics are under-specified.

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 only 33%, with only companyId described. The description does not explain what fieldName refers to or how existingOptions should be used, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('propose') and a specific resource ('dropdown option labels for a SELECT-typed field'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. This distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like field_get_list_field_options, which return existing options rather than generating new ones.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs LLM-generated option suggestions, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance about choosing between this and retrieval-based field option tools.

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