pipedrive_custom_fields_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (keys, names, types, options) and implies a read-only listing via "List," but says nothing about the metadata caching behavior (refresh_cache), pagination semantics, or rate limits that matter for a paged read tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: purpose first, return shape second, routing guidance third. The most actionable information (what it lists and what it returns) 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully fills the biggest gap by describing the return payload (keys, names, types, options). Pagination behavior and cache semantics are only covered by the schema, which is acceptable, but a note on when a refresh is warranted would complete the picture.

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 all five parameters, including the entity_type enum and the limit/cursor/refresh_cache/include_options fields, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List field metadata for an entity type") and immediately discloses the returned content (field keys, names, types, enum options). It also names a companion tool, custom_fields_by_name, which an agent can use to distinguish this discovery tool from the consumer tool.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ("Use this to discover available custom fields before using custom_fields_by_name") and names the alternative tool. It stops short of stating when-not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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