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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that fields are organized into categories and that omitting the category returns all categories and default fields. However, it does not mention return format, potential errors, or whether the list is exhaustive, leaving some transparency 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. It is concise but has slight redundancy between the first and second sentences ('Get organized list' vs 'This tool provides a list'), which could be tightened.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers input behavior and default logic. However, with no output schema or annotations, it leaves the structure of the returned list unspecified. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the default behavior (returns all categories if not provided) and giving an example value ('conditions'). This goes beyond the schema's parameter description, which only lists allowed categories.

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 the tool's purpose: to get an organized list of available fields for customizing search results. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('available fields'), and it differentiates itself from sibling search tools by focusing on field discovery rather than executing searches.

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 explains that the fields are used to customize results of other search tools, making it clear when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies it should be used before configuring search results.

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