get_fields

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds what the tool returns (field schema details) and its role in import workflow. No additional behavioral traits needed beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first returns data, second states usage. No redundancy or fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given full input schema, clear annotations (readOnly, nondestructive, openWorld), and output schema exists, the description is sufficient. It covers return content and usage context without missing information.

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 baseline 3. Description adds context: 'Company id from list_companies' and 'Entity name from list_entities (e.g., 'Invoice', 'Bill')', clarifying parameter sources and examples.

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?

Clear verb 'returns' and specific resource 'field schema for an entity'. Description explicitly lists returned data (type, required, alternativeTitles, predefinedValues) and use case (build/verify mapping). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_mapping and execute_import.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use to build or verify a mapping before running an import.' No confusion about applicability; implies it's for schema inspection only.

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