people_get_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond this by mentioning 'detailed schema information' and an 'Error Recovery' note about verifying module existence and checking field access permissions, which are useful behavioral traits not evident from annotations alone.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (overview, prerequisites, next steps, common pattern, error recovery). Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, workflow integration, and error recovery. It doesn't detail the exact return format, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 parameters have clear descriptions). The description reinforces that module_name should come from people_get_all_modules and mentions using field api_name values, but these add only minor context beyond the schema. The schema already carries the semantic load, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get field metadata for a specific People module with detailed schema information'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'field metadata' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like people_get_all_modules (lists modules) and people_search_records (searches records).

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 context with 'Prerequisites: Module name from people_get_all_modules' and 'Next Steps: Use field api_name values in people_search_records operations'. It also outlines a 'Common Pattern'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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