keap_get_contact_custom_fields

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

With no annotations, the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' indicating read-only, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The simplicity mitigates the gap, but more context would help.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, effectively front-loading the purpose.

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 simple get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It could mention return structure (e.g., list of field names/values), but overall it is sufficient.

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%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for contact_id. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'custom field values' for a contact, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like keap_get_contact (which retrieves standard contact info) and keap_list_custom_fields (which lists field definitions).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the name, but it lacks prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., must have custom fields defined, contact must exist).

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