get_custom_fields

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure, and it does convey a read-only list/search operation via 'Busca' and 'estrutura'. However, it does not mention return format, whether entity_type filters results, pagination, or any account-scoping nuance beyond 'da conta'.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation, and includes an illustrative example without filler. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is a simple read/list with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description plus schema provide enough to select and invoke it; only the exact response shape is left implicit, which is a minor gap for this tool.

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%, so the parameters are already documented (client_slug and entity_type with enum/default). The description adds a practical example but no extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Busca') with a clear resource ('a estrutura de campos customizados da conta') and a concrete use example (discovering the ID of 'CPF' or 'Origem' to fill a Lead/Contato). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_custom_field_by_id, which targets a single field by ID.

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 gives a clear when-to-use context: you need the custom-field structure to discover field IDs before filling a Lead/Contato. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough for an agent to select it over field-level mutations or lookups.

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