locations_get_custom_fields

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as what the response contains (custom field definitions, values, etc.), whether results are paginated, or how the model parameter affects the output beyond what the schema states. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the annotations.

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 just three words, which is concise but severely under-specified. It's only a title-like phrase, not a proper description. Under-specification is not true conciseness; the structure is essentially absent, providing no useful information in an organized manner.

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 and only a terse description, the tool lacks essential context. An agent cannot determine what the custom fields represent, how they are organized, whether the response is a list or a single object, or any edge cases like default location handling beyond the schema note. The tool's role in the larger locations domain is unclear, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 full descriptions for both parameters: 'model' explains it selects contact, opportunity, or all, and 'locationId' notes default behavior. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description itself offers no extra semantics, so it stays at baseline.

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 'Get Custom Fields' states a verb and resource but is extremely vague. It does not specify that these are location-scoped custom fields, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like locations_get_custom_field (singular) or custom_fields_get_custom_fields_by_object_key. The schema hints at contact/opportunity models, but the description alone leaves the agent guessing about what exactly is being retrieved.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to prefer this over locations_get_custom_field or custom_fields_get_custom_fields_by_object_key, nor does it mention whether this is the right tool for a specific scenario (e.g., retrieving all custom fields for a location). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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