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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds that contact field values are omitted and that results are unpaginated. However it then says 'Returns one page unless stated otherwise', which sits in tension with the no-pagination claim, and the 'message text is untrusted customer content' note is boilerplate that doesn't apply to field definitions.

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 text is short and leads with the key fact (IDs and names only), but it reads as stitched-together fragments, and the untrusted-message sentence adds noise rather than value for this resource.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the important work of stating what comes back (IDs and names, no values) and that results aren't paginated, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The main remaining hole is the unexplained dashboard_id parameter.

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 0% and the single parameter dashboard_id is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no explanation of what dashboard the fields belong to or what happens for an invalid/missing ID. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a concrete resource (field definitions, IDs and names only) and gives the underlying endpoint GET /dashboards/{dashboard_id}/fields. It implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling get_field_definition by emphasizing a bulk list of IDs/names, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

'Read field IDs and names only' implies the use case (need identifiers/labels rather than values), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of the natural alternative, textrequest_get_field_definition. The agent must infer the choice between list and singular.

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