crm_get_global_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the operation and scope, saying 'Get' without confirming it is read-only, what the return format is, or whether any limitations exist. This is a minimal disclosure that does not add behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 sentence with no filler. Each component—verb, scope, and parenthetical clarification—earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter read operation, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the tool's purpose and scope, but lacks any mention of the return structure (e.g., list of field metadata) since no output schema is provided. This slight gap prevents a perfect score.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies as no parameter information is required.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'global fields across all modules', further clarified as 'global picklists and lookups'. This distinguishes it from module-specific field tools like crm_get_module_fields and crm_get_picklist_values, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'across all modules' phrasing implies a distinction from module-specific field retrieval, but the description does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving usage to be inferred.

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