list_fields

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which already indicate safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool lists fields for filtering/sorting, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format or limits. This is adequate for a read-only tool, but not extra value beyond annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core action and resource, and the second reinforces the use case. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not specify what information is returned for each field (e.g., name, type, allowed values). For a discovery tool, agents need more context about the response shape to effectively use the results. This is a significant omission.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (category and asset_type) with enums. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'available fields', and explicitly states its purpose: 'discover what fields you can filter and sort by.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that screen or rank.

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 specifies a clear use case: 'Use this to discover what fields you can filter and sort by.' It implies context but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives; however, the sibling set includes screening tools, so the purpose is differentiated.

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