Custom Field Defs List

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

Beyond the annotations (which already say readOnly/idempotent, non-destructive), the description contributes real operational context: the required OAuth scope (read_products/write_products), that the API surface is unstable, the HTTP route, and the response envelope with pagination fields. Since there is no output schema, the return-shape note is genuinely useful. Only the 'unstable' label is left unexplored in terms of what could break.

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?

Five short lines, purpose first, then route, scope, version and return shape. Nothing is repeated and every line carries a distinct fact an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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 compensates by naming the response fields, and with 100% schema coverage the five parameters need no further explanation. The remaining gap is conceptual: it never says how a 'definition' relates to the values returned by tiendanube_custom_fields_list, which would help an agent pick correctly.

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 page, per_page, entity, fields and response_format are all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the path parameter via /{entity}/custom-fields and adds no format, default, or constraint detail of its own. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List custom field definitions', which clearly separates it from sibling mutation tools (custom_field_defs_create/get/delete) and from tiendanube_custom_fields_list, which deals with field values rather than definitions. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus tiendanube_custom_fields_list, tiendanube_custom_field_defs_get, or tiendanube_custom_fields_get_by_entity_id. The only context offered is an API-stability caveat, not usage guidance or prerequisites.

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