desk_get_entity_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful error recovery ('If fields not found, verify department and entity type are valid') and lists common entities, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or the exact response format. This is acceptable for a simple getter but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses concise markdown sections for prerequisites, next steps, common entities, and error recovery. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, valid inputs, and error recovery. It does not describe the returned field metadata structure, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema, but it is otherwise complete for its apparent simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'entity_type' and 'department_id' already have descriptions that include the same guidance (e.g., 'get from desk_get_all_departments'). The description repeats these points and adds error recovery, but it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 function: 'Get field metadata for a specific entity type in a Desk department'. This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like desk_get_all_departments (departments) and desk_search_entities (searching entities) by focusing on field metadata.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: prerequisites ('Department ID from desk_get_all_departments') and next steps ('Use field details for desk_search_entities criteria and filtering'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the workflow context is clear.

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