get_custom_field_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it does not mention pagination behavior (page/limit exist in the schema) or result size limits, leaving the extra-burden partially unmet.

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 sentences where the first two are near-duplicates ('Get all custom fields' / 'Retrieve all custom fields for a project'), wasting space before the genuinely useful model-filter sentence.

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 read-only paginated collection endpoint the description covers the main filter but omits pagination, default ordering, and scope caveats. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 reported as 0%, so the schema is not doing the explanatory work. The description does explain the model parameter's meaning and lists the resource types, but says nothing about project_id, page, or limit, so it only partially compensates.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: retrieve all custom fields for a project, and notes the model dimension. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling (no other custom-field tool exists in the sibling list, so differentiation is less critical).

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 tells the agent to use the model parameter to filter by resource type, which implies the filtering use case, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus other collection endpoints, nor any prerequisites such as required project access.

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