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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: not_found behavior when the object is invisible, the workspace-admin-only includeInactiveFields path for reactivating disabled fields, and a prompt-injection warning about untrusted CRM field values. It does not detail error shapes beyond not_found, but that is a minor omission.

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 main return-content sentence is front-loaded and dense, and the security warning is correctly separated into its own paragraph. The first sentence is a long run-on stacking four comma-joined items, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes no words.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the returned field names and the downstream keys. Combined with not_found semantics, admin-only behavior, and the trust warning, an agent has what it needs; only the objectType input format is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 67%, so workspaceId and includeInactiveFields are already documented in the schema and the description largely repeats includeInactiveFields' purpose. The required objectType parameter has no schema description and the description never clarifies its expected format (the mention of objectKey appears to be a return value, not the input), so the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 gives a specific verb (Returns) and enumerates exactly what is returned: object fields, the columns/sortBy/filter catalog that list_records consumes, and the plural objectKey used by get_permission_catalogue and admin tools. This is a discovery tool and the description makes that role unmistakable, distinguishing it from the CRUD siblings.

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 makes clear this is the schema-discovery step before calling list_records, and names the downstream consumers (list_records, get_permission_catalogue, workspace-admin tools). It does not, however, explicitly contrast with the sibling list_objects or state when this should be skipped, so there is context but no exclusions.

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