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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, ordering, or limits). With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate – the description does not contradict and provides minimal added value.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. However, it does not mention pagination or sorting, which are common for list operations, but the tool's simplicity may not require it. Missing a bit of completeness for a fully self-contained description.

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?

The description mentions 'account, contact, deal, or booking' which covers most but not all enum values (schema includes ticket, product, post). It adds CRM context beyond the schema description, which is helpful. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3; the extra context earns a 4.

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?

Description clearly specifies action (list), resource (custom field definitions), and scope (for CRM entities like account, contact, deal, booking). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_custom_field or get_custom_field.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_custom_field or set_custom_field_values. The description implies usage for listing definitions per entity type but does not specify when not to use it or provide context for selection.

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