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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about what the response contains, pagination, or required permissions — beyond pointing at describe_operation.

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 single meaningful clause is duplicated verbatim, wasting roughly half the text, and the operation ID and meta-instruction are not front-loaded information about what the tool does. Short but not earning its space.

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 description coverage, a nested object parameter, and no annotations explaining return shape, the description needed to carry the load and instead gives only a URL. An agent cannot determine valid entityType values or the response structure from this definition.

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 schema itself carries no semantics, and the description does not compensate. The path template hints that entityType is a path parameter, but there is no mention of valid entity types, format constraints, or what the untyped `query` object is for, leaving both parameters largely opaque.

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 is essentially the raw HTTP path repeated twice: 'GET /api/form-agreement-templates/available-fields/:entityType'. An agent can infer that it fetches available field definitions for a given entity type, but the description never states this in verbs or plain language, and it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as get_form_agreement_templates or the similarly named check-request 'available fields' tool.

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_form_agreement_templates, get_ai_field_metadata_by_entityType, or the other 'available fields' endpoints. The only directive is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which is a pointer to another tool for schema retrieval, not a usage condition.

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