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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the GET path—no return shape, pagination, or error behavior for an open-world read.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The noun-phrase opener is slightly weak as a lead but the content is efficient and the endpoint is unambiguous.

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?

A simple single-param read tool with annotations covering safety; little is strictly missing. But with no output schema, the description could say what the custom field values look like, and it doesn't, leaving the agent to discover the response blindly.

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% and job_id is fully documented as 'Bilflo contract job id', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes jobId in the path template and adds no extra meaning, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 clear resource and scope: 'custom field values of one contract job'. An agent can tell it retrieves data for a single job. However it never distinguishes itself from siblings like bilflo_list_custom_fields or bilflo_list_custom_field_items, which sound closely related.

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 on when to use this versus the plural custom-field list tools or get_contract_job. The only hint is 'one contract job', which implies job-scoped retrieval but doesn't route the agent between alternatives.

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