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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, yet the description adds real value by enumerating what comes back (field names, types, validation rules, enum values, reference targets). It does not mention pagination behavior or result size guarantees, which is the remaining gap.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the return payload described immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned field metadata, and pagination is covered by the limit/offset schema entries. Only the absence of any guidance on large result sets or default result ordering keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so entity_id, limit and offset are all documented in the schema; the description adds only the scoping meaning of entity_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 ('List field definitions') and scopes it to 'a specific entity', which implicitly separates it from list_entities and create_field. It is clear on its own, but it never names a sibling or contrasts scope against them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a specific entity' plus the required entity_id – an agent can infer you call it when you have an entity and want its field schema. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many list_* and create_field siblings.

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