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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns field metadata rather than data rows, includes workspace pipeline stages for applications, and mentions the writable_only filtering behavior. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, all high-signal. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, parameter clarification, and a critical caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and an output schema, so return-value details are already covered. The description explains what the tool returns, what it does not return, when to call it, and what writable_only changes. This is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains writable_only as a filter for 'only what update_record accepts' and indicates that resource_type refers to a 'record type,' with special mention of applications and their pipeline stages. It does not enumerate all resource_type options, but the schema already does; the description adds practical context beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the fields of a record type' and enumerates exactly what is included (standard fields, custom fields with slugs, types, allowed options, writable status, pipeline stages for applications). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_records or get_record, which return data rows rather than field metadata.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Call it before filtering on or writing any workspace-specific attribute, and before update_application_stage.' It also clarifies the writable_only parameter's effect relative to update_record. It does not explicitly name alternatives for when not to use the tool, but the 'No data rows are returned' note implies the boundary against data-retrieval tools.

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