get_lead_field_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's purpose and output format ('cheat sheet with API names, Field IDs, and Picklist Option IDs'), though it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is helpful but could be more comprehensive about operational constraints.

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 efficiently structured into three sentences that each add clear value: stating the purpose, providing usage guidance, and explaining the output's practical use. There is no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what the output contains, which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly without needing to detail return values (handled by the output schema).

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for this context.

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 specific action ('Get all lead fields'), resource ('for the current tenant'), and scope ('all lead fields'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'create_lead' by explaining the relationship between them, making it easy to understand what this tool does uniquely.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('CALL THIS FIRST before creating a lead') and why ('to build field_values for create_lead'). It also clarifies when not to use alternatives ('do not use static fields'), giving clear context for tool selection versus sibling tools like 'create_lead'.

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