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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful fact that results can span three distinct ownership scopes, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result volume limits beyond what the output schema carries.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it could have used one more clause for filters without becoming bloated.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. Still, for a tool with a nested filter object and low schema description coverage, the description omits the semantics of archived inclusion and pagination that an agent would need to call it well.

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 25%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It does map its three scopes onto the key filter concepts (companyId, ownerType, placedInSchemaKey), which is genuine added meaning, but includeArchived, pageSize, pageToken, and ids are left entirely to the sparse schema.

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?

States the verb (List) and resource (field definitions) plus the three scoping variants (company-owned, provider, placed on a record type). It distinguishes itself implicitly from the singular sibling schema_get_field_definition via 'List', but never names that sibling or schema_get_list_schema_definitions explicitly.

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 enumeration of 'company's own, a provider's, or those placed on a record type' implies the three query modes an agent could choose, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus schema_get_field_definition or schema_get_list_schema_definitions, and no prerequisites are given.

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