gold_ghl_custom_fields_map

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 important access traits (BYOK, paid only) and implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not describe return shape, pagination, folder semantics, or any side effects, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded. The core action and purpose appear in the first sentence, while access constraints are packed efficiently into the second. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter listing tool, the description conveys the main function and even hints at return content (custom fields and folder). However, it lacks parameter guidance, requiredness clarity, and any output format details, which are meaningful gaps given there is no output schema.

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 0%, and the sole parameter location_id has no schema description. The description mentions 'sub-account' but never maps it to location_id or clarifies whether it is required. With only one parameter, the description should have compensated for the schema gap but does not.

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 action and resource: 'List a sub-account's custom fields (+folder)'. It also clarifies the purpose—so AI fills fields correctly instead of guessing keys—which makes the tool's role immediately understandable and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool: whenever custom field keys must be resolved before filling them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions beyond BYOK and paid access. The intended usage context is present but only implied.

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