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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: it scopes the result to one entity type and to *active* custom fields, and tells the agent the payload includes choice options, filters, and relationships — useful for planning downstream calls. It does not, however, say what happens for an unknown or unsupported entity type.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and every clause (custom fields, choice options, filters, relationships) contributes to predicting what comes back. Nothing to trim.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is largely self-sufficient for a single-parameter read tool. The only gap is the unresolved overlap with list-custom-fields-tool, which leaves selection ambiguous in some cases.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already lists the valid entity types ('company, people, opportunity, task, note'). The description's phrase 'one CRM entity' is consistent with the schema but adds no syntax or selection detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get the current workspace schema for one CRM entity') and enumerates what the schema contains: active custom fields, choice options, filters, relationships. It is clearly distinct from the CRUD entity tools, though it does not distinguish itself from the near-sibling list-custom-fields-tool, which overlaps on custom-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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The closest sibling, list-custom-fields-tool, is never mentioned, so an agent has to infer which of the two to call when it only needs custom-field information.

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