pipedrive_custom_fields_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. It also omits pagination behavior (cursor, limit) and caching (refresh_cache), which are important for performance expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and specific return values. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description hints at return structure (field keys, names, types, options). However, with 5 parameters and no pagination or caching details, the description could be more complete. Still, it provides adequate context for basic usage.

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 only 20% (1 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters like refresh_cache, cursor, limit, and include_options.

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 tool lists field metadata for an entity type and specifies the return values (field keys, names, types, options). It also distinguishes its purpose from a sibling tool (custom_fields_by_name) by indicating sequencing.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool before custom_fields_by_name, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond that one sibling.

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