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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'Bulk support' context and mentions the endpoint path. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or error behaviors, but given the annotations cover the key behavioral traits, this is acceptable.

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 short and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose and endpoint. The bulk support note is useful and relevant. It is not overly verbose, but could be more structured (e.g., separate 'usage' sentence) for readability.

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 the tool is a read-only lookup with simple parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it. It explains the endpoint, the value proposition (resolving listItemId), and mentions bulk support. No major gaps that would prevent correct use.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining parameters. The description clarifies that 'id' is the CustomFieldsDefinitions id, and implies that 'ids' is used for batched execution. However, it does not explain the format of ids, whether both id and ids can be used together, or the relationship between them beyond 'bulk support'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it resolves the text behind listItemId values in customFields by accessing /CustomFieldsDefinitions/{id}/options. It names the specific endpoint and resource, which distinguishes it from generic list/get tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like legalone_get_customfielddefinitions, so it loses a point.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to translate listItemId values to human-readable text for custom fields. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The bulk support note gives a hint about usage with multiple ids but no detailed guidance.

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