b24_read_custom_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the read-only nature and the broad scope across all CRM entities, which is useful. However, it does not describe the response structure, pagination behavior, authentication expectations, or what 'configuración completa' concretely includes.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, and every word 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 relatively simple, has zero required parameters, and the schema covers both optional parameters, so a brief description is partially acceptable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the concrete shape of the returned custom-field configuration unspecified, requiring the agent to infer what 'configuración completa' means in practice.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not mention that entity_type_id can filter results, but the schema already documents this clearly.

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 action ('Lee' / reads), the resource ('campos personalizados de todas las entidades CRM'), and the expected content ('configuración completa'). It is specific enough to understand what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like b24_crm_fields or b24_read_entity_types.

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 implies this tool should be used when custom field definitions for CRM entities are needed, and the read-only nature is implicit. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or cases where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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