Field capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: wildcard acceptance, cross-index type conflict visibility, and the non-obvious consequence that aggregations over such fields become silently partial rather than failing. This is exactly the kind of behavioral warning an agent needs.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second adds the distinguishing behavior and its operational warning. Every clause earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essential facts: what it returns, how it differs from its sibling, and a critical edge-case consequence. The schema and annotations carry the remaining details, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 already describes both parameters clearly, including wildcard behavior and defaults, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not substantially add parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it reinforces the wildcard theme but introduces no new parameter detail.

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 opens with a precise statement of what the tool returns: fields across an index pattern plus whether each is searchable and aggregatable. It further distinguishes itself from get_mappings by calling out wildcard support and the special case of fields mapped as two different types, making the tool's identity unmistakable.

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 names get_mappings as the alternative and gives a concrete differentiator ('Takes a wildcard, unlike get_mappings'). It also establishes a strong when-to-use condition: it is the only way to detect a field mapped as two different types. It does not spell out the reverse case ('use get_mappings when...'), but the intended routing is clear.

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