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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns no data rows, exposes workspace-specific fields, and includes pipeline stages only for applications. Minor omissions like auth requirements or rate limits are acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences cover purpose, scope, usage timing, filtering, and return behavior without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the annotations, output schema, and clear usage guidance, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The only small gap is that writable_only is marked required in the schema while the description reads as if it may be optional, but this does not seriously impair correctness.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'writable_only' as filtering to what update_record accepts and refers to 'record type' for resource_type, but it does not explicitly map resource_type to the parameter or clarify that writable_only is required. It adds some meaning but does not fully cover both parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('fields of a record type'), and enumerates exactly what is included: standard fields, custom fields with slugs/types/options/writability, and pipeline stages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-returning tools like list_records or get_record.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call it: 'before filtering on or writing any workspace-specific attribute' and 'before update_application_stage.' It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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