get_udf_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing behavioral: it does not say whether all lists are returned, whether results are paginated, or what a UDF list contains. The 'wraps NBAPI GetUDFLists' note is an implementation detail with no decision value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first. The parenthetical wrapper reference is the only expendable fragment, but overall it is tight.

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?

A no-arg, read-only list tool is a low-complexity case; annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain. The description is adequate, though a one-line note on the get_udf_lists vs get_udf_list_items relationship would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description's 'No parameters required' correctly confirms this and matches the empty schema, with no misleading parameter hints.

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 a specific verb (Lists) and resource (user-defined field lists) and even expands the UDF acronym, which is genuinely useful. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_udf_list_items (the items within a list), so an agent must infer the boundary from naming alone.

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 statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative get_udf_list_items. 'No parameters required' describes the call mechanics rather than when an agent should reach for this tool over its sibling.

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