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 context beyond that: that inactive field definitions are returned and that option labels are configured values, which shapes how an agent interprets results. Pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the main scope statement front-loaded and the disambiguation second. There is no filler.

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, return values needn't be spelled out, and the four optional params are fully documented in the schema. The only residual gap is the lack of explicit guidance on combining entity_type with active filtering, which is minor for a simple read 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the default-includes-inactive behavior of 'active'. The description's mention of inactive fields largely restates what the schema says and adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case guidance. Baseline 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 concrete verb and resource ('List workspace custom-field definitions') and adds scope detail: inactive fields and configured option labels are included. It also names the sibling it is not ('get-crm-schema-tool'), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get-crm-schema-tool when the active write schema is wanted, which is the key ambiguity in this tool family. It does not state when this tool should be avoided outright, but the comparative framing gives clear context.

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