List property fields

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the payload is reference data (valid field names and slot keys) rather than records, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the set is static or account-dependent.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and it front-loads the most important fact — that this returns accepted field names — before the consumer tools. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: field names plus document slot keys, mapped to the tools that consume them. Minor gap in not describing the shape (e.g., a flat list of strings) or whether add_property and update_property share the same set.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The sentence instead spends its budget explaining the meaning of the returned values, which is the right trade-off.

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 names the resource precisely — the field names accepted by add_property/update_property and the document slot keys for upload_document — so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is distinct from; the distinction is inferable only because no other sibling is a field/slot reference tool.

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?

By tying the output to add_property, update_property, and upload_document, it effectively signals when to call it: before composing those calls. It gives clear context but states no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the lists differ per account).

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