Get All Custom Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minor context beyond annotations, such as the endpoint URL and required parameter. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or what happens on empty results. With rich annotations, the description adds some but not substantial 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?

The description is roughly four sentences, but the second sentence introduces confusion by contradicting the first. It also redundantly states required parameters. While not overly verbose, it could be more concise and clear by removing the contradictory statement and focusing on the core functionality.

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?

Despite rich annotations and complete schema, the description lacks important context. It does not explain return format (though no output schema exists), pagination handling, or how to interpret the response. The mention of 'specific Custom - Configurable Tools' is misleading given the tool retrieves all. For a list endpoint, more detail on pagination and filtering would be expected.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description merely repeats that company_id is required, adding no new semantic meaning. Per the guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, so this score 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 'Retrieves all Custom Fields within the specified company.' The verb and resource are clear. However, the following sentence introduces confusion by mentioning 'fetch the full details of a specific Custom - Configurable Tools by its identifier,' which contradicts the 'all' intention. This reduces clarity but the primary purpose remains understandable.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions the API endpoint and a required parameter but does not explain use cases, when not to use it, or how it differs from siblings. No alternatives are suggested, leaving the agent without sufficient context to choose this tool over others.

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