list_custom_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that option values are excluded, but says nothing about pagination behavior, the meaning of detail modes, or what a page contains — a gap given the tool's pagination-heavy schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier arrives before the sibling hint. Nothing redundant.

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 10-parameter, nested-object, cursor-paginated list tool with only 30% schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough. Pagination continuation semantics and the discriminator between filter parameters are left entirely to an under-documented schema, even though the output schema does relieve it of explaining return values.

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?

Ten parameters with only 30% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them: no explanation of ids vs query, detail=summary/full, include_values, include_author, or the text_offsets/section_offsets/previous_page continuation mechanism. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read custom property definitions'), scoping the tool to definitions rather than values. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_custom_property_select_values by noting option values are read separately, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 clause 'option values can be read separately' implies the alternative for value retrieval but never names the sibling tool or states an explicit when-to-use/when-not condition. Routing is left to inference.

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