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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds account scoping ('dit account') and states the returned content categories (system and custom fields, with type/choices/section), which is useful context beyond annotations, but with no output schema it still leaves the response structure only loosely characterized.

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?

One short sentence plus a parenthetical, with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which makes it slightly dense but costs no tokens an agent does not need.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope (this account), granularity (one object), and the kinds of values returned (type, choices, section). It is close to sufficient, though it does not say whether the result is flat or grouped per section, nor whether it depends on the object argument's access rights.

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% and the single 'object' parameter already carries an enum with a plain-language description of the three allowed values. The description's phrase 'voor één object' reinforces the cardinality (exactly one object per call) but adds no syntax or behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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 the specific resource (field registry) and its scope (one object, system and custom fields, with type/choices/section), which lets an agent understand it returns field metadata rather than records. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like crm_bedrijf or crm_deals, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the schema-discovery step to run before populating fields elsewhere; nothing in the text confirms that or rules out any other use.

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