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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (id and name pairs) and that the underlying call is a GET against /selector/{kind}, which tells the agent the data is static configuration rather than tenant records.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the kind list embedded in the first sentence so the agent reads the essential contract immediately. The 14-value enumeration largely duplicates the schema enum, which is mild waste, though it lets the agent decide fit without opening the schema.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema required, everything an agent needs is present: what it returns (id/name pairs), which kinds are valid, and how to consume the output in write tools. Nothing material is left unspecified.

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% with a single fully enumerated parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns extra credit by explaining what the parameter semantically selects (a field's configured choice set) and how the returned ids feed the *_id fields of write tools, going beyond the terse schema line "Which list of choices."

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 specific verb and resource ("List the configured choices (id and name) for a field") and enumerates exactly which field kinds are covered, which cleanly separates it from sibling list_* tools that return records rather than schema metadata. The trailing endpoint reference (GET /selector/{kind}) confirms the scope.

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?

Gives concrete forward guidance: "Use the ids in the *_id fields of the write tools," which tells the agent this is a prerequisite helper for create/update calls. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives (e.g., freshsales_lookup or freshsales_search) or state when not to call it, so it stops short of full 5-level routing.

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