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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'Lists...'—no mention of response shape, pagination behavior, filtering, or what happens when no user-defined fields exist. It adds little beyond the annotations and title.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is not padded or redundant, though it is close to a bare restatement of the title 'List User-Defined Fields.'

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?

Given a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not explain what the returned fields look like, how pagination works, what companyName context is needed, or how filtering/ordering should be used. The annotations confirm safety, but not how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds no parameter semantics. The schema explains only companyName, filter, orderBy, and connectionRef; the pagination parameters top, page, skip, and pageSize are left as bare types with defaults. Since schema description coverage is only 50%, the description needed to compensate for these unclear parameters, but it does not.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Lists BRC user defined fields.' It is unambiguous about the operation being a list/read. It does not explain what a BRC user-defined field is or add differentiating context, but the resource name is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of connection requirements, prerequisites such as brc_confirm_company_connection, or when a list operation is preferable to the get-style tools for user-defined fields. This leaves usage entirely to inference.

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