Get Custom Field Data Types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it is paginated, uses page/per_page, returns a JSON array with pagination metadata, and explains that results are filtered based on feature flags and field_set_id/type parameters. This adds value beyond the 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 somewhat verbose and contains redundancy (e.g., mentioning 'Returns all...' and later 'Returns a paginated...'). It also includes a potentially misleading sentence about fetching 'Custom - Configurable Tools by its identifier' which may not align with the tool's actual purpose. The endpoint path could be omitted for brevity.

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 what is returned, filtering, and pagination. However, without an output schema, more details on the response structure (e.g., fields returned, variant shapes) would be helpful. There is also some ambiguity about returning 'Custom - Configurable Tools' versus data types. Overall adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the filtering behavior of type and field_set_id, and the pagination control provided by page and per_page. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 returns all available custom field data types for a company including variants. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on data types rather than custom fields themselves, and mentions filtering by field_set_id or type, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 explains when to use the tool (to fetch custom field data types) and mentions filtering parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it nor provide alternatives, missing some guidance on tool selection.

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