Get Bid Board Project Custom Fields

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description explains pagination behavior, including page and per_page parameters, and states that the response includes pagination metadata. No contradictions with 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?

The description is four sentences and front-loads purpose. The second sentence is somewhat redundant and could be merged or removed. The endpoint info is useful but adds length. Overall reasonably concise.

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?

The description covers pagination and required parameters but contains an inaccuracy (refers to 'Bid Board records' instead of custom fields). Given no output schema and four parameters, it is adequate but not fully precise.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates that bid_board_project_id and company_id are required but adds no additional semantic meaning 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 identifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'Bid Board project custom fields'. However, the second sentence refers to 'full details of a specific Bid Board records', which could be confused with retrieving the project itself rather than its custom fields. The endpoint specification clarifies the scope.

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 implies usage for fetching custom fields details but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_bid_board_project_by_id or explain when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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