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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' line is redundant but consistent. Beyond annotations, it usefully enumerates the returned metadata (key, labels, type, enum options, filterable/indexed/required flags) and the allowed type values, despite no output schema. It does not explain the include_archived parameter's effect.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then lists the returned attributes and the downstream tools that consume the keys. It is dense but every clause adds useful information, and the separate 'Read-only.' sentence is brief and clear.

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-only field-introspection tool with no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values well, including field types and metadata flags. The main completeness gap is the unexplained include_archived parameter; otherwise an agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool.

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?

There is one parameter, include_archived, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what archived fields mean here. The description adds useful meaning about the returned fields but does nothing to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the workspace's own lead fields. It goes further by identifying exactly where those keys are consumed (create_lead, update_lead, crm_import_leads, list_leads, search_leads), which clearly distinguishes this introspection tool from sibling actions that create, update, or filter leads.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: discovering field keys, types, options, and filter/sort/required flags before using create_lead, update_lead, crm_import_leads, list_leads, or search_leads. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as crm_define_field for creating fields, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.

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