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

The annotation readOnlyHint is set to true, and the description describes a read-only operation ('Returns...'). There is no mention of side effects or mutations, and the description does not contradict the annotations. The behavior is fully transparent.

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 description is concise—two sentences—and covers all essential aspects: what is returned, the input parameter, and the intended usage. No redundant information is included, and the structure is clear and to the point.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description provides useful context about the response content (paths, types, enum options, optionality) and the usage context (with create/update). It does not specify the exact response structure (e.g., JSON format), but given the read-only nature and the closed-world hint, this is adequate for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 schema provides a description for the propertyType parameter ('Property type slug') and an enum of three values, so coverage is 100%. The tool description connects the parameter to the purpose by stating 'Returns the full field catalog for a property type,' reinforcing its meaning. However, the description does not elaborate on the enum values themselves, though they are self-explanatory in context.

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 clearly states that the tool returns a field catalog for a given property type, specifying exactly what is included (dot-separated paths, types, enum options, optionality). It also explicitly mentions the intended use with create_draft/update_draft, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that focus on drafts, certificates, or property types themselves.

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 description gives direct guidance: 'Use these exact paths and options with create_draft/update_draft.' This tells the agent when to call this tool (before creating or updating a draft) and how to apply the results. It is explicit and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role in the workflow.

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