List Custom Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: cursor-paginated results, the need for object_type, and support for name/archived filtering. This goes beyond the static annotation without contradicting it.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the endpoint and action in the first sentence, then adding pagination/requirement and filtering details in two more sentences. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 schema coverage (100%) and read-only annotation, the description adequately covers purpose, pagination, entity requirement, and filtering. It does not describe return shape or explicit alternative exclusions, but these are partially addressed by the schema and sibling context, making it complete enough for selection and invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including enums, defaults, and constraints. The description merely echoes the object_type requirement and filter capabilities, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 'Returns a cursor-paginated list of custom fields' with an explicit HTTP method and the required object_type scoping. It distinguishes the tool from sibling create/update/get custom field operations by specifying the listing behavior and entity scoping.

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 implies usage: list custom fields for a specific entity with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like gorgias_list_ticket_fields or gorgias_get_custom_field, nor does it state any exclusions.

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