b24_crm_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that this is a read-only listing operation and describes the content returned (standard + custom fields, types, labels, configuration). However, it does not disclose webhook/auth requirements, the effect of passing no parameters, or how entity_type_id and webhook_url affect the call.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the additional details (standard + custom, types, labels, configuration) are presented efficiently.

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 metadata-listing tool, the description covers the key output content and read-only nature, which is important because there is no output schema. However, it leaves the webhook_url parameter unexplained and does not clarify invocation behavior when optional parameters are omitted, making it adequate but not fully 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 only 67%, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The 'entity' parameter is already described in the schema, but 'webhook_url' has no description at all and 'entity_type_id' is described cryptically as 'ID de SPA'. The description does not clarify the relationship between entity, entity_type_id, and webhook_url.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('campos disponibles de una entidad CRM'), and specifies that it includes both standard and custom fields with their types, labels, and configuration. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling b24_read_custom_fields by explicitly covering standard fields as well.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like b24_crm_list, b24_crm_get, or b24_read_custom_fields. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the conditions under which this tool is preferred. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose statement.

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