zendesk_list_ticket_fields

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states that the tool lists all fields including system and custom, and returns IDs, types, and dropdown options. Though it does not mention pagination behavior or absence of side effects, listing is inherently read-only and the description covers the essential output.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second gives a use case. 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should clarify return structure. It mentions IDs, types, and dropdown options, which covers the core response. It does not describe pagination metadata (e.g., total count, next page), but for a list tool the description is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (page, per_page). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which already describes them. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 identifies the tool's action ('list'), resource ('all ticket fields (system and custom)'), and specifies the output details (IDs, types, dropdown options). It states a concrete use case ('discovering field IDs needed for search queries'), which differentiates it from other tools in the sibling list.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for discovering field IDs needed for search queries.' This gives agents a specific scenario for when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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