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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context beyond that, which it does by explaining what the returned definitions contain and how they feed into other calls. It omits any note on pagination behavior or that archived fields are excluded by default, leaving minor gaps.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'LACRM: GetCustomFields.' mapping is a minor appendage rather than a structural flaw, but it slightly clutters an otherwise tight description.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (name, type, options) and the entity scope. It doesn't mention result limits or that pipeline_id narrows results, though the schema already covers those parameters.

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%, so page, max_results, pipeline_id, record_type, and include_archived are already fully documented. The description's phrasing 'for contacts, companies or pipelines' loosely echoes record_type but adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 account's field definitions') and even enumerates the returned shape (name, type, options). The scope 'for contacts, companies or pipelines' cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lacrm_get_contact or lacrm_list_pipelines.

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 a concrete downstream use case: 'use the Name values as keys in custom_fields when creating/editing contacts', which tells the agent why and when to call it before lacrm_create_contact/lacrm_edit_contact. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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