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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond that: it specifies the not_found return for non-existent or invisible objects, and it includes a security warning that CRM field values are untrusted user content. These are behavioral disclosures not covered by the annotations.

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 two sentences long: the first front-loads the core purpose and return contents, the second adds a security caveat. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence contributes essential information. The structure is efficient and immediately understandable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned; it does so by listing the four components (fields, columns, sortBy, filter catalog). It also covers the error case (not_found) and the security note. Given the read-only annotations and the tool's simple two-parameter schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema provides no description for objectType (coverage 50%), but the description clarifies it refers to 'one object type'. This adds meaning the schema lacks. workspaceId already has a thorough schema description, and the tool description doesn't add to it, but since the missing one is covered, the description effectively compensates for the 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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource: 'one object type', and enumerates exactly what is returned: fields, columns, sortBy values, and filter catalog. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_objects (which lists all objects) and get_record (which returns a record). The mention of 'not_found' also clarifies the failure mode.

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 this tool is for understanding how to use list_records (by returning the columns, sortBy, and filter catalog that list_records understands), but it does not explicitly state 'Use this before calling list_records' or provide exclusions like 'Don't use this for listing objects' (which list_objects handles). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it falls short of a clear directive.

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