list_custom_field_applications

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, lowering the bar. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation — that the result includes global application status — but discloses nothing about pagination behavior, empty results, or invalid-ID handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 17-word sentence that leads with the action verb and states the exact scope of the result. Every word earns its place, with no filler, caveats, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only listing tool, the definition is nearly complete: all three parameters are documented in the schema, the read-only nature is in annotations, and the description conveys what the return conveys (applied objects plus global flag). It stops short of a 5 only because there is no output schema and no description of the response shape.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: id, page, and per_page each have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('objects a custom field is currently applied to'), making the action unmistakable. It also adds the 'including whether it is applied globally' nuance, which differentiates the returned information from a bare list. The purpose is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like apply_custom_field and remove_custom_field_application.

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 usage context is implied by the purpose statement: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding where a custom field is applied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions relative to sibling tools such as search_custom_fields.

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