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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful data-scope boundary by excluding secrets, contacts, and original files, but it does not explain authorization requirements, pagination behavior, or what 'authorised' means in practice.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes. The second sentence is a compact exclusion list, though the phrasing 'through the existing application' is slightly vague and low-value.

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 read tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves important invocation details unstated, especially pagination limits and query behavior. The annotations cover safety, but the parameter surface remains largely unexplained.

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 0% and the description says nothing about limit, query, or offset. The parameter names are conventional enough to infer rough meaning, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Read') and resource ('custom field reporting metadata'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as list_custom_field_definitions or get_field_layout, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It states nothing about when to use this tool instead of related custom-field or field-layout tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance.

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