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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description's main added value is the privacy behavior: fields named like personal data are excluded from results. That is meaningful behavioral context that an agent would not infer from the annotations or schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: it first states what is returned, then the prerequisite source of the id, then a notable filtering rule. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the prerequisite id source, and an important privacy exclusion. It does not describe pagination or exact return shape, but the core information needed to invoke and interpret the tool is present.

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%, and the single custom_field_id parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the id comes from bilflo_list_custom_fields but does not add format or constraint details beyond the structured field.

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 identifies the resource and scope: selectable items belonging to one custom list field. It also ties the required id back to bilflo_list_custom_fields, which helps distinguish it from field-listing siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as bilflo_get_job_custom_fields.

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 implied by the phrase 'id from bilflo_list_custom_fields,' which signals the prerequisite lookup tool. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other custom-field-related siblings, nor does it provide when-not guidance.

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