crm_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns field metadata including custom fields (ufCrm...), which provides behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradiction found.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide a usage hint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple metadata tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and content scope. Annotations cover read-only behavior, and the output schema handles return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'entity' parameter with an enum and a clear description. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema 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?

The description clearly states that it provides a description of CRM object fields (names, types, requiredness, list variants) including custom fields. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like crm_get (which fetches a record) or crm_list (which lists records) by focusing on metadata rather than data.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool before creating or changing a CRM entity, giving a clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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