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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the scope is 'this account', the endpoint is GET /contact/meta, and the response shape (fields, types, required flags, allowed actions) is disclosed. It stops short of noting auth requirements or caching behavior, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (what the schema contains first, the UID usage note second). Every clause carries information; the endpoint reference is compact and useful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return payload — and it does: each field's type, required status, and permitted actions. For a zero-parameter read tool with safety already declared in annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and redirects the parameter discussion to how the OUTPUT values (UIDs) are used in other tools' custom_fields.

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+resource ('contact field schema of this account') and enumerates what it contains: default and custom fields with type, required flag, and allowed actions. The 'contact' qualifier separates it from get_company_fields and get_project_fields without opening their schemas.

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 second sentence gives useful downstream guidance — custom fields appear under their UID and those UIDs are what to pass in custom_fields — which implies the tool should be consulted before create/update calls. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus suitedash_get_contact, and no exclusions are stated.

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