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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that private files and secrets are excluded from results, but that exclusion is stated vaguely and no pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed.

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 the trailing exclusion clause is slightly ambiguous in what 'private files' means for custom field sections.

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, 0% parameter descriptions, and no pagination guidance, the description leaves real gaps: an agent cannot tell the result shape, whether results are paginated beyond limit/offset, or how sections relate to field definitions. The exclusion note is the only added context.

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%, so the two parameters (limit, offset) are documented nowhere — only their types and bounds exist in the schema. The description does not mention pagination, defaults, or the maximum limit at all, leaving the agent to open the schema and guess intent.

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 a specific verb-and-resource pair: reads (lists) 'custom field sections', scoped to 'authorized' ones. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling list_custom_field_definitions, so an agent must infer the boundary between sections and field definitions.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or pagination context. The only hint is the word 'authorized', which implies a permission filter but doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over the sibling listing tools.

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